Eli Harman: —“What’s the basis for prosecuting the purveyors of perverse and p

Eli Harman:

—“What’s the basis for prosecuting the purveyors of perverse and pernicious entertainment fiction, such as that which has proliferated lately? They use it for the purposes of ideological warfare, so there must be one…”—

I don’t think we get into true/false with fiction with any more difficulty than we get into true/false with biographies, and fiction as false history. The court is pretty good at this process.

So:

1 – We have the easy problem of whether it’s stated as fiction or not.

2 – We have the the easy problem of whether someone’s making an argument or not.

3 – We have the medium problem that someone is engaged in fraudulent representation of the narrative or not.

4 – And we have the hard problem that someone is promoting immorality or not (indirect ir-reciprocity).

5 – And we have the easy problem that someone is promoting crime or not (direct ir-reciprocity).

6 – And we have the very easy problem of someone SPEAKING OR TEACHING literature as science or truth.

I am not sure this is all that difficult.

We do most of it today. The only difference is that we don’t punish advocacy of parasitism and the teaching of it.

I mean, if you write a novel where a murderer, or a terrorist or communist is a hero I think we might get there but I think that is very hard to take seriously. That’s the only question.

I think the issue is one of authority:

Pretense of truth.

Academy, church, or state.

Eli Harman:

—“What about if you’re using fiction to teach lies, like equality. It could be that an exceptional female or minority character is just an extreme outlier. But when the DISTRIBUTION of female and minority characters is systematically shifted toward “extreme outlier” territory across ALL popular fiction, how do you prosecute any one content creator for lying?”—

I think that the only reason this is even a question is because we haven’t had our revolution yet and put the law into place, and I”m very certain that the world will change radically because it will be economically too dangerous to tread those waters.

I think that just as there are things you are careful about doing today – promoting terrorism and thievery in the classroom. And I think that there are things that we don’t do in the classroom – making arguments to supernaturalism. And I think it will be just as uncommon to make pseudo-rational, pseudo-moral, pseudoscientific, arguments in the future as it will be to make supernatural arguments in school and university today