Was Voltaire wrong?
Nov. 26th, 2007 08:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andygatesOxford Union are hosting a debate on free speech tonight, and they invited a couple of people with pretty unfashionable opinions: Nick Griffin, leader of the far-right BNP, and David Irving, the holocaust-denying pseudohistorian. There is predictable uproar and protest.
Once upon a time, I was a strong advocate of Voltaire's position: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Not so much any more. Thing is, I've been around long enough now to see some utter nonsense get trolled out and lapped up by the general public. I don't think that the general public are especially stupid, but I do think that expecting them to judge an opinion coolly, based on the facts, is naive. And for a while this has been vexing me. Why, when cool heads can see clearly, does this tripe still have a hold on people?
I think the memetic theory holds water here. Meme theory says that the "strongest" ideas will flourish in the ecosystem of our minds. "Strong" does not mean "good" or "valuable" or "true" - "strong" means that the idea has high fecundity and fidelity. It has to get into lots of minds, and be the same when it gets there. Now for the political controversy: I think that reactionary, tribal memes are stronger than cool, rational memes. The stuff you see in your right-wing rant newspaper is vigorous memetic seed; the thought-out arguments full of nuance are weaker, because they are so subtle - they take more effort to impart, and are more vulnerable to mutation. Their one strength is truth, but the verity of a meme is a pretty weak test. That comes later, and by then the reactionary memes can be dug well in, reinforced in their own little complexes.
And this is why my path has differed from Voltaire's. Some ideas may be very, very strong memes, and yet be utter crap: mental kudzu, if you like. Holocaust denial is a perfect example: there are living witnesses of the Holocaust and yet this can persist? It's utter, gibbering bunk, yet it has hooks. So no, while I respect the necessity to have proper discussion, I will not defend to the death Irving's right to contaminate anyone's mind-pool with his virulent, dangerous, silly memes.
Once upon a time, I was a strong advocate of Voltaire's position: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Not so much any more. Thing is, I've been around long enough now to see some utter nonsense get trolled out and lapped up by the general public. I don't think that the general public are especially stupid, but I do think that expecting them to judge an opinion coolly, based on the facts, is naive. And for a while this has been vexing me. Why, when cool heads can see clearly, does this tripe still have a hold on people?
I think the memetic theory holds water here. Meme theory says that the "strongest" ideas will flourish in the ecosystem of our minds. "Strong" does not mean "good" or "valuable" or "true" - "strong" means that the idea has high fecundity and fidelity. It has to get into lots of minds, and be the same when it gets there. Now for the political controversy: I think that reactionary, tribal memes are stronger than cool, rational memes. The stuff you see in your right-wing rant newspaper is vigorous memetic seed; the thought-out arguments full of nuance are weaker, because they are so subtle - they take more effort to impart, and are more vulnerable to mutation. Their one strength is truth, but the verity of a meme is a pretty weak test. That comes later, and by then the reactionary memes can be dug well in, reinforced in their own little complexes.
And this is why my path has differed from Voltaire's. Some ideas may be very, very strong memes, and yet be utter crap: mental kudzu, if you like. Holocaust denial is a perfect example: there are living witnesses of the Holocaust and yet this can persist? It's utter, gibbering bunk, yet it has hooks. So no, while I respect the necessity to have proper discussion, I will not defend to the death Irving's right to contaminate anyone's mind-pool with his virulent, dangerous, silly memes.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 04:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 04:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 05:07 pm (UTC)I've had low blood sugar.
The memetic substrate is the ape. Without the ape as host, the memes wouldn't thrive and breed. Therefore the nature of the substrate is a necessary consideration. We have evolved to think. We didn't just spring forth from some unseen creator, all bright-eyed, tail-less and memetically hungry.
Considering memes without considering the nature of the ape is like trying to work out what species will survive in a given location without taking into account the environment.
But hey. You're right and I'm wrong. I liked that part. We should do that again.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 05:10 pm (UTC)