Random political thought thread.

[Virtual ghost]

Put another way, the downside of majority rule is the possibility of oppressing minorities. Progressive government includes protections to ensure that does not happen. The smallest, most "niche" group, to use your terminology, becomes the canary in the mine shaft. As long as they are treated fairly, everyone else probably is, too. Once it becomes OK to limit, bully, or oppress them, it's just a matter of time before the next group comes under attack, and the next, and the next.

To be honest to me this is quite naive approach if this is how it should be in all cases. In other words a foreign dictator or CEO puts some propagandists and TV stations into your country to "poison the well" and you should just take that in the name of liberty, tolerance and free press ? Would you change your opinion if we replace those two with the most toxic and amoral lobbyists ?


This is why the whole western civilization is going down, since it is no longer able to sort out anything. And then people are in shock when people vote for the guy that offers change, even if it will probably be for the worse. But people will gamble because just about something will perhaps get done to fix the cracking foundations. This idea that you can have endless diversity and that the system will work is for me also one of the wild west style fantasies. This is in the same category as completely unregulated markets, the problems will solve themselves if we have enough faith in out ideals. Back in the wild west there was basically an anarchy with ultra low population density, so we can perhaps say that just about everything could work. However people are forgetting that wild west was basically at the time completely isolated from the rest of the world. What due to internet and modern transport is no longer the case anywhere. What means that some kind of ideological sorting out is vital if you want to have functional country. By your logic it isn't ok that US banned Nazi stuff back in a day, what I don't find to be a mistake. Keeping the Soviets at the distance also wasn't really a mistake. While modern day examples of this are probably catels at southern border, foreign lobbyists and completely impractical social ideas (regardless of left and right).


Therefore tolerating elements that are evidently incompatible or toxic in the end will only lead to eventual breaking of a dam. What means that people will then want a strongman to clean up the mess ... and then you will get exactly what you were trying to avoid. Therefore some things just need to be thrown down the drain and forgotten. What you are proposing is basically status quo and that never really works out on the long run.


Just saying.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

A con artist is exactly what he is and why I find him so objectionable, the whole of his so called business smarts are nothing more than duping rubes like some sort of two big PT Barnum, Musk is just another example of it and he's thrown his lot in so heavily with Trump because its just about one of the only ways of keeping the shambling corpse which is twitter going for another year or two, he'll still not break even, maybe he'll run for office if Trump can ever be persuaded to relinquish office that is.

A friend of mine has sworn off all social media and all news broadcasts or other sources of news since these developments.

He's actually much happier for it all told.

I have been basically doing this for years. I did this after 2004. Then in 2012, I had a long commute on public transit, so I started following this stuff more. I dropped off in 2016 again. I think it's essential to stay more on top of things now, though.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

To be honest to me this is quite naive approach if this is how it should be in all cases. In other words a foreign dictator or CEO puts some propagandists and TV stations into your country to "poison the well" and you should just take that in the name of liberty, tolerance and free press ? Would you change your opinion if we replace those two with the most toxic and amoral lobbyists ?

The problem is I don't trust people to regulate it. People tend to see anything unfamiliar to them as a threat. The problem is that not everything that is unfamiliar is dangerous.

If all you mean is banning Russia Today, I don't have a problem with that. That's a known, quantifiable source of misinformation and it's practically in the name. I've just seen so many (bad faith?) arguments where people accuse someone else (either me or someone else) of holding outrageous associations and affiliations based on no evidence. When the average person acts that way, why should I trust that a government official would have better judgement? We live in the age of a "non-partisan" Supreme Court after all.

I think some of this can also be weaponized and abused in a way that people don't intend. Some people might think that's a farfetched claim, but I've definitely seen it happen. I have a work story about this.

I think people would be less susceptible to Russian propaganda if more people were encouraged to actually think. However, they are not. People mistrust the very concept on both sides of the aisle, really.

If someone walks in here with a screenname like HeilHitler88 or KKK2539, I don't have an issue with them being banned. But I've also seen some random ass people accused of being Nazis, some of those just made me just go "huh"? I suppose my request is that there be real evidence for this kind of stuff instead of just going with it because people shouted it loudly.

If we turn this place into Russia to stop it from being taken over by Russia, what is the point? Maybe what we could do instead is have agents of our own on social media to tip the scales on our favor against all the paid Russian actors that supposedly exist? I wouldn't have a problem with that, actually.

I'm getting a passport so, among other things, I can fly around a country I'm a citizen of because of people were afraid of Islamic terrorists in the 00s. I'm not interested in that kind of thinking making a comeback, or being appropriated by liberals.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The problem is I don't trust people to regulate it. People tend to see anything unfamiliar to them as a threat. The problem is that not everything that is unfamiliar is dangerous.

If all you mean is banning Russia Today, I don't have a problem with that. That's a known, quantifiable source of misinformation and it's practically in the name. I've just seen so many (bad faith?) arguments where people accuse someone else (either me or someone else) of holding outrageous associations and affiliations based on no evidence. When the average person acts that way, why should I trust that a government official would have better judgement? We live in the age of a "non-partisan" Supreme Court after all.

I think some of this can also be weaponized and abused in a way that people don't intend. Some people might think that's a farfetched claim, but I've definitely seen it happen. I have a work story about this.

I think people would be less susceptible to Russian propaganda if more people were encouraged to actually think. However, they are not. People mistrust the very concept on both sides of the aisle, really.

If we turn this place into Russia to stop it from being taken over by Russia, what is the point? Maybe what we could do instead is have agents of our own on social media to tip the scales on our favor against all the paid Russian actors that supposedly exist? I wouldn't have a problem with that, actually.

I'm getting a passport so, among other things, I can fly around a country I'm a citizen of because of what people were afraid of in the 00s. I'm not interested in that kind of thinking making a comeback.

Of course that many people suck at critical thinking, however that is for me still fairly poor excuse to tolerate just about anything.
Not too long I ago I even watched video on differences of what is considered to be free speech in US and Europe ... and there were a few differences in details. In other words Europe is much more likely to sanction what common sense and most of the public sees as openly toxic (regardless of the topic). While US just doesn't want to have defined standards. What I find idealistic but somewhat impractical. Because by European logic if things go too far that evidently damages liberties of others, even if the whole thing stays purely on the verbal level.



Actually I even managed to find the video.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Of course that many people suck at critical thinking, however that is for me still fairly poor excuse to tolerate just about anything.
Not too long I ago I even watched video on differences of what is considered to be free speech in US and Europe ... and there were a few differences in details. In other words Europe is much more likely to sanction what common sense and most of the public sees as openly toxic (regardless of the topic). While US just doesn't want to have defined standards. What I find idealistic but somewhat impractical. Because by European logic if things go too far that evidently damages liberties of others, even if the whole thing stays purely on the verbal level.



Actually I even managed to find the video.

Ok, so here's my story.

I met one of my girlfriends at work. We had different supervisors. My girlfriend's supervisor was an older Jewish woman. Apparently she made the unforgivable mistake of asking someone if she was Jewish. She was fired for that reason.

There are a few things worth mentioning. She was in charge of second or third shift and did a lot of advocating for her employees to make sure they didn't get screwed over. That must have pissed some people off, and I suspect that's the real reason she was fired. She seemed to be a good boss and was a mentor to my girlfriend. I don't think my ex has anything to do with what happened. I get the feeling a specific person was involved with this, somebody who may have a "Dark Triad" person/psychopath involved.

Anyway, I'm really skeptical of the idea that if we regulate speech more we'll just have puppies and rainbows. Some people just like being able to have power and control over other people; they'll use any damn thing that exists.

The idea of regulation of speech does actually tamp down on the debates of other topics as well. I don't give a damn what Trump or Musk say, I believed this years before they emerged on the scene. I'm not going to go changing my opinions just because of them. Why should I give them credit like that?

Also, Musk is a massive hypocrite and bans people who make fun of him or criticize him. He doesn't actually believe in what he's talking about, and Trump, doesn't either.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Ok, so here's my story.

I met one of my girlfriends at work. We had different supervisors. My girlfriend's supervisor was an older Jewish woman. Apparently she made the unforgivable mistake of asking someone if she was Jewish. She was fired for that reason.

There are a few things worth mentioning. She was in charge of second or third shift and did a lot of advocating for her employees to make sure they didn't get screwed over. That must have pissed some people off, and I suspect that's the real reason she was fired. She seemed to be a good boss and was a mentor to my girlfriend. I don't think my ex has anything to do with what happened. I get the feeling a specific person was involved with this, somebody who may have a "Dark Triad" person/psychopath involved.

Anyway, I'm really skeptical of the idea that if we regulate speech more we'll just have puppies and rainbows. Some people just like being able to have power and control over other people; they'll use any damn thing that exists.

The idea of regulation of speech does actually tamp down on the debates of other topics as well. I don't give a damn what Trump or Musk say, I believed this years before they emerged on the scene. I'm not going to go changing my opinions just because of them. Why should I give them credit like that?

Also, Musk is a massive hypocrite and bans people who make fun of him or criticize him. He doesn't actually believe in what he's talking about, and Trump, doesn't either.

Ok, but you in my book you don't seem to grasp the alternatives. If you make a society that is generally polite in standards you will also have much less of the dark triad people. Since that is basically the outcome of the environment in which those people were growing up.

Plus having a person fired for something like this is for me a fail in critical thinking (if I understood the story correctly). After all this is exactly why Europe has developed labor laws. So that some idiot can't scream "You are fired!" however he likes it.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Ok, but you in my book you don't seem to grasp the alternatives. If you make a society that is generally polite in standards you will also have much less of the dark triad people. Since that is basically the outcome of the environment in which those people were growing up.

Well, that's not what we have. I agree that there is little social trust, and that it would be ideal to increase it. Perhaps that is what we should be discussing.

Plus having a person fired for something like this is for me a fail in critical thinking (if I understood the story correctly). After all this is exactly why Europe has developed labor laws. So that some idiot can't scream "You are fired!" however he likes it.

Why not? It means somebody is super smart and is going to be a brilliant leader who knows how to play seven-dimensional chess!

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well, that's not what we have. I agree that there is little social trust, and that it would be ideal to increase it. Perhaps that is what we should be discussing.

I know that you don't, this is exactly why I put the argument on the table. Since your logic isn't breaking the circle.

Why not? It means somebody is super smart and is going to be a brilliant leader who knows how to play seven-dimensional chess!

Because such behavior makes you look like an idiot in my culture. Self absorbed idiot to be exact.

In other words if you are an idiot the odds are that that you can't play seven dimensional chess.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I know that you don't, this is exactly why I put the argument on the table. Since your logic isn't breaking the circle.

I'm aware of this. I don't see why I should, in this particular fashion, anyway. If I've seen all the ways people can abuse it, why should I go ahead and say that it's a good idea? Why would I advocate for something that I don't think will keep me safe?

How could the circle be broken? Oddly, I trust strangers in my neighborhood well enough, even though one of them tried to rob me. The kind of behavior that I would really like to see someone do something about is not actually criminal and is frequently rewarded in corporate and political settings. People think it's brilliant, a specimen of the finest thing humanity could ever produce, and that we should be lucky to live among such Gods. Why should I trust any of that that? How do we solve this problem?

Because such behavior makes you look like an idiot in my culture. Self absorbed idiot to be exact.

In other words if you are an idiot the odds are that that you can't play seven dimensional chess.

That's what lots of people in this country think, which I'm sure you know.

Would you trust other people in your country so much if they were in the habit of voting for leaders like that?

 

[Coriolis]

I dont think alienating the majority has worked so far but you keep it up and I guess we'll all see how it works out.

Maybe promoting and profiling homosexuality will be something it was worth jettisoning everything else for but I dont think so.

Dont see why you're mentioning preferences and jewishness, seems a bit random but maybe it makes sense to you, sometimes its really not a good idea to fight every single battle like it was the last one and continually hark back to those glory days, again, just my opinion.

We'll do it your way and see what happens. Its not like there's not sufficient evidence already but anyway. The lesson keeps being repeated until the learning happens.

Things are headed "my way" and have been for quite some time. These changes don't happen overnight, though, and we often take some steps backward, as we are doing now, after going forward for awhile. I am curious as to why you think ensuring minorities are treated fairly will alienate the majority. Are you assuming most people care only about themselves, in a very short-sighted way? Are you assuming that fairness is a zero sum game, in which extending it to some means reducing it for others? Neither of these is true. Sure, if you remove barriers, members of the majority might be competing against more people when it comes to jobs, for instance, but then employers have a broader pool from which to select the best candidate, and previously marginalized people have the opportunity to develop and use their talents.

As for preferences and religion, our religion is actually more of a preference than innate characteristics like race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. Plenty of people convert, but it's pretty hard to turn white if you are tired of being black. In any case, none of these are justifications for denying people fair access to things like housing, education, employment, or justice under the law. Bottom line is to treat everyone fairly. Since unfair practices often target people by demographic group, the remedies often have focused on the affected group.

To be honest to me this is quite naive approach if this is how it should be in all cases. In other words a foreign dictator or CEO puts some propagandists and TV stations into your country to "poison the well" and you should just take that in the name of liberty, tolerance and free press ? Would you change your opinion if we replace those two with the most toxic and amoral lobbyists ?


This is why the whole western civilization is going down, since it is no longer able to sort out anything. And then people are in shock when people vote for the guy that offers change, even if it will probably be for the worse. But people will gamble because just about something will perhaps get done to fix the cracking foundations. This idea that you can have endless diversity and that the system will work is for me also one of the wild west style fantasies. This is in the same category as completely unregulated markets, the problems will solve themselves if we have enough faith in out ideals. Back in the wild west there was basically an anarchy with ultra low population density, so we can perhaps say that just about everything could work. However people are forgetting that wild west was basically at the time completely isolated from the rest of the world. What due to internet and modern transport is no longer the case anywhere. What means that some kind of ideological sorting out is vital if you want to have functional country. By your logic it isn't ok that US banned Nazi stuff back in a day, what I don't find to be a mistake. Keeping the Soviets at the distance also wasn't really a mistake. While modern day examples of this are probably catels at southern border, foreign lobbyists and completely impractical social ideas (regardless of left and right).


Therefore tolerating elements that are evidently incompatible or toxic in the end will only lead to eventual breaking of a dam. What means that people will then want a strongman to clean up the mess ... and then you will get exactly what you were trying to avoid. Therefore some things just need to be thrown down the drain and forgotten. What you are proposing is basically status quo and that never really works out on the long run.


Just saying.

I don't even know what you are talking about here. That "poisoning of the well" often takes the shape of scapegoating minorities. Here I am talking about minority demographic groups, not destructive behaviors or opinions.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I don't even know what you are talking about here. That "poisoning of the well" often takes the shape of scapegoating minorities. Here I am talking about minority demographic groups, not destructive behaviors or opinions.

The problem is that you seem to see minorities as something fundamentally good. What is the picture of the world I simply don't agree with. In my part of the world there is no such a thing as "flat earth society" since such claims are being smeared and actively disproved. After all the education system is placing the foundations so that such claims don't stick into any part of the society. Another example: Pedos, they are taking plenty of flak over what they do but that doesn't bother me, they fully deserved it. Right now Musk has some trials going on in Europe for openly spreading misinformation. So technically we can consider that he as a very rich man is a minority. However by my local laws that doesn't give you the right to openly mess with lives of people by spreading over and over misinformation and half truths that have practical implications. If you are making plenty of money on all of that this probably makes it even worse. I am not kidding when I say that Europe is on the edge of banning social media altogether. Since the concept as it is now isn't really compatible with our culture (some laws included).


In other words your country looks as it looks exactly because too many things are allowed. What usually damages someone sooner or later, perhaps even severely. There simply doesn't seem to be the balance between tolerance and common sense. The pandemic of poor mental health in US didn't came out of no where.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm aware of this. I don't see why I should, in this particular fashion, anyway. If I've seen all the ways people can abuse it, why should I go ahead and say that it's a good idea? Why would I advocate for something that I don't think will keep me safe?

How could the circle be broken? Oddly, I trust strangers in my neighborhood well enough, even though one of them tried to rob me. The kind of behavior that I would really like to see someone do something about is not actually criminal and is frequently rewarded in corporate and political settings. People think it's brilliant, a specimen of the finest thing humanity could ever produce, and that we should be lucky to live among such Gods. Why should I trust any of that that? How do we solve this problem?



That's what lots of people in this country think, which I'm sure you know.

Would you trust other people in your country so much if they were in the habit of voting for leaders like that?

First off all half of your country doesn't even vote. Since the system doesn't seem to offer candidates with much added value. What is the problem that can perhaps be solved. It wouldn't be easy but it can perhaps be done. Therefore in my book your argument is kinda flawed and probably doesn't offer full picture.


In my option it all comes down to competence, what means that the public needs to be pushed into the zones where there is more of "quality information". Since at the end of the day this can only be solved through genuine education. The only real question is how to get people's attention.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Like, what keeps people from accusing anyone with an opinion they don't understand of spreading Russian propaganda? It's already happened to me. Imagine if people could be reported to the authoriities for that. If this were the case I'd probably would stop voicing my opinions.

(I was anti-Putin before it was cool, back when another Republican president looked into his eyes and saw only goodness in his soul. All I did was point out the existence of neo-Nazis in Ukrainev

First off all half of your country doesn't even vote. Since the system doesn't seem to offer candidates with much added value. What is the problem that can perhaps be solved. It wouldn't be easy but it can perhaps be done. Therefore in my book your argument is kinda flawed and probably doesn't offer full picture.


In my option it all comes down to competence, what means that the public needs to be pushed into the zones where there is more of "quality information". Since at the end of the day this can only be solved through genuine education. The only real question is how to get people's attention.

Would you trust people in your country if they voted this way, over and over? I agree that minds can be changed.

 

[The Cat]

​

 

[Virtual ghost]

Would you trust people if they voted this way, over and over? I agree that minds can be changed.

I suppose that would depend on the exact community I am living in US. However the answer is probably yes since I am group minded person (as you can see based on my post).

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Also, do people want a Trump-controlled misinformation task force?

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I suppose that would depend on the exact community I am living in US. However the answer is probably yes since I am group minded person (as you can see based on my post).

I find that surprising.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I find that surprising.

Which part of the post exactly ?

 

[The Cat]

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Which part of the post exactly ?

That you would trust the country as a whole.