Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- probably_wrong [2025/08/20 23:10] – ultracomfy
+++ probably_wrong [2025/08/23 15:07] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 Well, I think it is very human to be confidently wrong about the most obviously wrong and contradictory things. We just //are not// rational creatures. It's not just that I was wrong about really dumb thing in the past, but it's also that I cannot possibly know what I am wrong about these days. This is why I don't think we should judge people too hard for being wrong in the dumbest, most obvious ways - whether it's yourself or others. What I judge myself for is for being vocal about things that I was wrong about. No clue what you're talking about? - Just shut up and inform yourself. That's what I should have done. And make myself more aware of the emotions that were guiding me into being stubborn about a belief. It is very easy to cross the point of no return beyond which your brain just cannot allow itself anymore to be wrong and will do the funniest, jankiest mental gymnastics to see itself right, even in the face of the most overwhelming and undeniable evidence. This is why I say to check whether you are still at a point where you even could be convinced //at all//, because oftentimes your emotions can make you feel like you just cannot allow yourself to be wrong and will just refuse //any// evidence regardless of merit.
+====== Wrong as a political philosophy ======
+<WRAP box>
+<WRAP centeralign group>
+<WRAP 5% rightalign column>
+<fs xx-large>//**"**//</fs>
+</WRAP>
+<WRAP 80% column>
+I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
+</WRAP>
+<WRAP 5% leftalign column>
+<fs xx-large>//**"**//</fs>
+</WRAP>
+</WRAP>
+<WRAP centeralign>~Evelyn Beatrice Hall in "The Friends of Voltaire"</WRAP>
+</WRAP>
+The possibility of being wrong is why freedom of speech and freedom of thought exist. We like to think that we are smart because we don't burn witches anymore. Back in the days, trying to argue that burning witches might actually be bad would have been //outrageous// and would have seen you burned along with them. They weren't even capable of fathoming a world without burning witches. Fast forward to today, we can fathom a world without burning witches, but there are still things us today can't fathom to live without. Those things are, by their very nature, very contentious. Some would say, for example, that a world without capitalism is impossible. Some say that a democracy is the only way we can live, but maybe in 500 years a technocratic society will laugh at our naivety. Maybe the [[veganism|vegans]] were right and killing animals just because they "taste well" is wrong after all((Honestly, I find this one pretty convincing. I hope I won't forget to think more and eventually write about this.)). Or here is one that even I cannot see past: Murder is bad - I think that, but who am I to say whether it really is?
+Either way, it is important for our society to at least //allow// even the fringest and most outrageous opinions. Injecting ourselves into that process and dictating which opinions are acceptable - no matter how good our reasoning - commits the same mistake that has stopped/slowed societal progress for all of human history. Not to mention the political implications of letting the government police which opinions we get to have. This all applies to thoughts as well - you should be able to reign freely in your head, no matter how abhorrent someone else would find those thoughts.