News Misinformation dropped dramatically the week after Twitter banned Trump

[QSD]

Who determines what is misinformation?

The government?
The media?
The corporations?

We all agree it is an issue. But who gets to be the arbiter of truth? Why aren't we searching more into how these algorithms work instead of trying to ban this generic term misinformation? Why do we trust these corporations when their motive is profit, not our well being? Why do we trust the government when their motive is compliance, not truth.

Basically my joke above about banning ads first is also trying to draw attention to the fact that we've been allowing misinformation and manipulative/persuasive messaging to creep into our societies until it's reached a point now where we're completely saturated with it to such a degree that we don't even know we're actually drowning. Jordan Peterson once said that "the west" is philosophically characterized by "logos" or true speech, which is supposed to help bring forth order from chaos. But honestly ATM nothing seems further from the truth, we're completely inundated in lies and manipulation. Getting back to a place where truth is once again held up as a virtue instead of a dumb thing that only suckers and utopians adhere to is going to be an uphill battle.

 

[Irobot82]

Basically my joke above about banning ads first is also trying to draw attention to the fact that we've been allowing misinformation and manipulative/persuasive messaging to creep into our societies until it's reached a point now where we're completely saturated with it to such a degree that we don't even know we're actually drowning. Jordan Peterson once said that "the west" is philosophically characterized by "logos" or true speech, which is supposed to help bring forth order from chaos. But honestly ATM nothing seems further from the truth, we're completely inundated in lies and manipulation. Getting back to a place where truth is once again held up as a virtue instead of a dumb thing that only suckers and utopians adhere to is going to be an uphill battle.

I can't even begin to imagine what the solutions are?

On some level I feel like Adam Curry was always correct when he said "You can't monetize the network". In a sense he is correct because the only way advertising is viable over the internet is by "misinformation" which causes "clickbait" and India click farms. So what's the solution? Everything behind a paywall like The Wallstreet Journal? Is a value for value model the only true solution to media over the internet?

Nobody talks to anyone anymore. There is no discussions in government about how to come together to make things better. It's always my side it right and your side is wrong and nothing in-between. Are we too far gone? I don't know anymore.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

I can't even begin to imagine what the solutions are?

Education that teaches critical thinking instead of teaching adherence to dogma.

 

[QSD]

I can't even begin to imagine what the solutions are?

I can tell you the solution but you'll have to GIVE ME MONEY FIRST

On some level I feel like Adam Curry was always correct when he said "You can't monetize the network". In a sense he is correct because the only way advertising is viable over the internet is by "misinformation" which causes "clickbait" and India click farms. So what's the solution? Everything behind a paywall like The Wallstreet Journal? Is a value for value model the only true solution to media over the internet?

The only way most advertising, not just internet advertising, is viable is by misinformation. Putting hot chicks in an ad for a soft drink which will just make you fat is already 'misinformation' if you ask me. We started down this road a long time ago by turning a blind eye to cynical manipulation in ads. Then came the tel-sell "informercials" and then when the practice migrated to news and politics we had little ground to oppose it because it's basically accepted everywhere else.

Nobody talks to anyone anymore. There is no discussions in government about how to come together to make things better. It's always my side it right and your side is wrong and nothing in-between. Are we too far gone? I don't know anymore.

The 'sides' problem is a function of the american 2 party system. We have a lot of the same problems here in The Netherlands, but what we don't have is the extreme polarization that comes with having just 2 parties.

 

[QSD]

Education that teaches critical thinking instead of teaching adherence dogma.

Even with stellar education you're going to have serious trouble avoiding some of the problems that are occurring now. There's a lot of people who are just not smart enough to understand modern society. Even some of the brightest minds alive ATM, like Peterson and Harris and you name the public intellectuals struggle to make sense of it. Somebody with a double digit IQ is basically just lost ATM. BUT... even if unintelligent people can't understand what's going on, they can still feel like they're being shafted. Enter a demagogue like Trump who knows how to appeal to that sense of malcontent, and you're basically where you are now.

One of the fixes would be to alleviate the sense of being shafted in the intellectually underprivileged. But seeing how even something as straightforward as raising the minimum wage to a living standard is considered blasphemy by some, we've got a long road ahead.

 

[oagboghi2]

Oh man, what a zinger. You really got me there.




Blame liberals all you want, but that doesn't fully cover the actual problem: People censor stuff they don't like hearing.
The Republicans are the kings of this behavior. Christians (which are nearly always Republican) censor stuff basically 24-7. It's funny you specifically mentioned book burning, since that's basically a staple for Christians/Republicans.
"Conservatives" (which isn't even really a behavior anymore) aka Republicans ban stuff far more often than "Liberals" (which is basically everybody in the government) do.

The actual point is that censorship is at an all-time high. It doesn't really matter which party a person is a part of; censorship has never been worse.
We've normalized it at this point. It's so bad that even people like yourself seem to blame one party or the other for censorship regarding a handful of incidents; when, in fact, it's been happening since before either of us were born.

Book burning is a staple for Christians? Do you actually know any Christians, or do you just spout bullshit, like you always seem to do?

No, last I checked large tech companies weren't banning the political opponents of the party they directly donate to from public dialogue, and have former employees staff for, in the vague hope they won't influence the public. I know you are trying to push this silly "both sides" bullshit, but there isn't a both sides element here. One group is trying to censure people. The other isnt.

Your vague bullshit about Christians and people choosing what media sources they listen to, have nothing to do with what I said.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

GREATER GOOD GREATER GOOD.

Political bloc says that wrongthink misinformation decreases when they push more and more dissenters out of their echo chambers. How amusing!

 

[QSD]

Book burning is a staple for Christians? Do you actually know any Christians, or do you just spout bullshit, like you always seem to do?

No, last I checked large tech companies weren't banning the political opponents of the party they directly donate to from public dialogue, and have former employees staff for, in the vague hope they won't influence the public. I know you are trying to push this silly "both sides" bullshit, but there isn't a both sides element here. One group is trying to censure people. The other isnt.

Your vague bullshit about Christians and people choosing what media sources they listen to, have nothing to do with what I said.

he's right about Christians though, when I was younger in the 80ies and 90ies, literally every impulse to censor or ban shit came from Christians. Mortal Kombat, Dungeons and Dragons, Hip Hop music, hell they even tried to ban rock 'n roll...

 

[showernota]

Blame liberals all you want, but that doesn't fully cover the actual problem: People censor stuff they don't like hearing.
The Republicans are the kings of this behavior. Christians (which are nearly always Republican) censor stuff basically 24-7.

You should get out of the mindset that we're still in the 80s/90s. I can't think of anything happening like this in many years.

It's funny you specifically mentioned book burning, since that's basically a staple for Christians/Republicans.
"Conservatives" (which isn't even really a behavior anymore) aka Republicans ban stuff far more often than "Liberals" (which is basically everybody in the government) do.

I think antifa has burned more books than Christians in the last decade, and they've only been around like a year.

 

[oagboghi2]

he's right about Christians though, when I was younger in the 80ies and 90ies, literally every impulse to censor or ban shit came from Christians. Mortal Kombat, Dungeons and Dragons, Hip Hop music, hell they even tried to ban rock 'n roll...

What year is it? 2021 or 1982

We have shit going down today, and you want me to be worried about Christian groups from 30 years ago putting a warning sticker on cds?

Oh and what happened to "private groups can do anything they want".

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

he's right about Christians though, when I was younger in the 80ies and 90ies, literally every impulse to censor or ban shit came from Christians. Mortal Kombat, Dungeons and Dragons, Hip Hop music, hell they even tried to ban rock 'n roll...

Look up Tipper Gore and why we have advisory labels on music.
Look up Jack Thompson, another censorial prick who was definitely not a christian/right-winger.

Censorship is a feature abused by those in power / those protecting their establishment. It can come from any ideology. Christianity ultimately reverts back to free speech advocacy when it becomes threatened or loses grip on power. We have 2000 years of history across numerous cultures and countries to affirm this habit of the religion.

 

[QSD]

What year is it? 2021 or 1982

We have shit going down today, and you want me to be worried about Christian groups from 30 years ago putting a warning sticker on cds?

Oh and what happened to "private groups can do anything they want".

You don't need to be worried, you just need to understand that the impulse towards censorship comes from misguided individuals on every side of politics.

Look up Tipper Gore and why we have advisory labels on music.
Look up Jack Thompson, another censorial prick who was definitely not a christian/right-winger.

Censorship is a feature abused by those in power / those protecting their establishment. It can come from any ideology. Christianity ultimately reverts back to free speech advocacy when it becomes threatened or loses grip on power. We have 2000 years of history across numerous cultures and countries to affirm this habit of the religion.

Agree with everything you said. I just don't want to let it stand that censorship is some kind of left-wing affliction.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Agree with everything you said. I just don't want to let it stand that censorship is some kind of left-wing affliction.

Currently, it is. Censorship has been abused by left-wing governments and movements quite openly in the last century. During this same period of time, many right-wing blocs have attempted censorship / information control and have lost. Right-wing censorship has lost considerable ground while left-wing censorship has flourished. Pointing this out doesn't have to spark a Both Sides™ rebalance.

 

[QSD]

Currently, it is. Censorship has been abused by left-wing governments and movements quite openly in the last century. During this same period of time, many right-wing blocs have attempted censorship / information control and have lost. Right-wing censorship has lost considerable ground while left-wing censorship has flourished. Pointing this out doesn't have to spark a Both Sides™ rebalance.

I understand your point. The thing I worry a lot about is when talking about US politics "left" and "right" start to become incoherent labels. To me, left-wing means "advocating for workers rights and opposing corporate power". There is no logical path that I can see that goes from that core mission statement to "advocating for censorship" and any sort of insinuation that it does will hurt both the struggle against corporate power and the struggle against censorship. Democrats are advocating for censorship. If you are a liberal (edit: or a left-winger) and you advocate for censorship you're being incoherent.

One other thing that I'd like to point out is that there is no social space in modern society that is more tightly speech policed than the corporate office. The acceptability of authoritarian speech policing there facilitates the acceptance of wider speech policing and censorship.

 

[oagboghi2]

You don't need to be worried, you just need to understand that the impulse towards censorship comes from misguided individuals on every side of politics.

And right now, today, in 2021, not 1982, it's coming from one and only one side.

It is a "left-wing affliction." if that is what you want to call it.

I understand your point. The thing I worry a lot about is when talking about US politics "left" and "right" start to become incoherent labels. To me, left-wing means "advocating for workers rights and opposing corporate power". There is no logical path that I can see that goes from that core mission statement to "advocating for censorship" and any sort of insinuation that it does will hurt both the struggle against corporate power and the struggle against censorship. Democrats are advocating for censorship. If you are a liberal and you advocate for censorship you're being incoherent.

One other thing that I'd like to point out is that there is no social space in modern society that is more tightly speech policed than the corporate office. The acceptability of authoritarian speech policing there facilitates the acceptance of wider speech policing and censorship.

it doesn't matter what the term means to you. What matters is what is actually happening.

Do the democrats seem like a party that is opposing corporate power right now?

 

[QSD]

And right now, today, in 2021, not 1982, it's coming from one and only one side.

It is a "left-wing affliction." if that is what you want to call it.

yeah basically see my reply above to DunDunDunpachi

 

[ManofOne]

“The character of the censored press is the characterless monster of unfreedom; it is a civilized monster, a perfumed abortion, the censored press with its hypocrisy, its lack of character, its eunuch's language, its dog-like tail-wagging, merely realizes the inner conditions of its essential nature. The consequence of the censorship system is that the system founders deceive others and deceive themselves." - Karl Marx.

Checkmate Socialist.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I understand your point. The thing I worry a lot about is when talking about US politics "left" and "right" start to become incoherent labels.

You and me both. I only use em when I intend to speak in the broadest of terms. I think we've already crossed into that territory, where the labels are mostly incoherent.

To me, left-wing means "advocating for workers rights and opposing corporate power".

So does that mean Republicans are left-wing for gathering up all the blue collar workers and for standing against corpo-media censorship and big-tech censorship? The question is meant to be rhetorical to affirm what you said above, that the labels are becoming increasingly meaningless.

There is no logical path that I can see that goes from that core mission statement to "advocating for censorship" and any sort of insinuation that it does will hurt both the struggle against corporate power and the struggle against censorship. Democrats are advocating for censorship. If you are a liberal and you advocate for censorship you're being incoherent.

One other thing that I'd like to point out is that there is no social space in modern society that is more tightly speech policed than the corporate office. The acceptability of authoritarian speech policing there facilitates the acceptance of wider speech policing and censorship.

The corporate office is going away with all the work from home stuff. It'll be very easy to keep your mouth shut in the occasional interactions you have with co-workers while chatting on social media. But that won't stop the censorship, it'll merely provide a different avenue.

"sorry but we have to let you go because of the social-media groups your Facebook profile is following. We also noticed -- here, please sign these exit forms -- that you Liked some controversial comments on the right-wing gamergate forum, NeoGaf."

We'll keep seeing more firings and blacklistings for people who express their views by those channels instead of at the work water-cooler.

I enjoy political discourse that is centered around topics and opinions, where people can weigh in without some label or bloc hanging around their neck. The only concern should be inconsistency with one's own stated beliefs. Most political boards devolve to "Hi I'm a Republican and therefore..." which then spirals into "[since you're a Republican] So what you're saying is...." and strawmanning that person's position based on their stated (or presumed) side.

And so with that said, thanks for explaining your viewpoints. I'm interested to hear what you think of what I posted above.

 

[QSD]

“The character of the censored press is the characterless monster of unfreedom; it is a civilized monster, a perfumed abortion, the censored press with its hypocrisy, its lack of character, its eunuch's language, its dog-like tail-wagging, merely realizes the inner conditions of its essential nature. The consequence of the censorship system is that the system founders deceive others and deceive themselves." - Karl Marx.

Checkmate Socialist.

Is this aimed at me or just in general? Seems like a pretty solid take from uncle Karl there.

 

[QSD]

And right now, today, in 2021, not 1982, it's coming from one and only one side.

It is a "left-wing affliction." if that is what you want to call it.


it doesn't matter what the term means to you. What matters is what is actually happening.

Do the democrats seem like a party that is opposing corporate power right now?

No they do not. But you are actually making my point for me. The Democrats are not a left-wing party. They're just a vaguely middle of the road party full of corporate shills and awful grifters. Unfortunately, the republican party is no better and certainly not in a condition where it can even put up a fight.

Anytime you stan hard for either one of these corrupt parties you are doing yourself and your fellow countrymen no favor. The US needs more and better political parties. It doesn't need this ride-or-die shit for a bunch of exploitative assholes.

 

[QSD]

You and me both. I only use em when I intend to speak in the broadest of terms. I think we've already crossed into that territory, where the labels are mostly incoherent.


So does that mean Republicans are left-wing for gathering up all the blue collar workers and for standing against corpo-media censorship and big-tech censorship? The question is meant to be rhetorical to affirm what you said above, that the labels are becoming increasingly meaningless.

All agreed

The corporate office is going away with all the work from home stuff. It'll be very easy to keep your mouth shut in the occasional interactions you have with co-workers while chatting on social media. But that won't stop the censorship, it'll merely provide a different avenue.

"sorry but we have to let you go because of the social-media groups your Facebook profile is following. We also noticed -- here, please sign these exit forms -- that you Liked some controversial comments on the right-wing gamergate forum, NeoGaf."

I certainly worry sometimes that posting here will get me in trouble but fuck it, the best way to oppose censorship in this case is just to stand my ground and keep posting.

We'll keep seeing more firings and blacklistings for people who express their views by those channels instead of at the work water-cooler.

The point I was trying to make about the corporate office is also a broader point that a lot of times when I argue with people who I would consider "classic right wing" (I really don't know the best term for this but I mean people who espouse the classic gordon-gekko esque pro-corporate, pro-entrepreneurship, ayn rand-toting, laissez-faire capitalism view) that they have an odd inconsistency in their view where they are at once massively pro-freedom, but not for their employees. If you don't like the feeling of a government boot on your neck, then don't put your boot on your employees' neck. I think the idea of "workplace democracy" is actually not half bad. I'd be interested to hear what you think.

I enjoy political discourse that is centered around topics and opinions, where people can weigh in without some label or bloc hanging around their neck. The only concern should be inconsistency with one's own stated beliefs.

On the inconsistency point I'd like to add that I'm a big fan of the Jordan-Peterson-view that talking should be like thinking out loud. You should obviously strive for consistency, but finding inconsistency shouldn't be some stupid gotcha game, where you dismiss people for a misapprehension. We are all improvising, and I don't care that you made a logical error or an off-colour joke some time in 2007.

Most political boards devolve to "Hi I'm a Republican and therefore..." which then spirals into "[since you're a Republican] So what you're saying is...." and strawmanning that person's position based on their stated (or presumed) side.

In the US people have started supporting the 2 political parties like they're sports teams, hooliganism and all. I think before you said that the 2 party system wasn't the biggest problem, but I'm telling you man, it's a problem

And so with that said, thanks for explaining your viewpoints. I'm interested to hear what you think of what I posted above.

no prob, keep em coming

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

All agreed

I certainly worry sometimes that posting here will get me in trouble but fuck it, the best way to oppose censorship in this case is just to stand my ground and keep posting.

You and me both.

The point I was trying to make about the corporate office is also a broader point that a lot of times when I argue with people who I would consider "classic right wing" (I really don't know the best term for this but I mean people who espouse the classic gordon-gekko esque pro-corporate, pro-entrepreneurship, ayn rand-toting, laissez-faire capitalism view) that they have an odd inconsistency in their view where they are at once massively pro-freedom, but not for their employees. If you don't like the feeling of a government boot on your neck, then don't put your boot on your employees' neck. I think the idea of "workplace democracy" is actually not half bad. I'd be interested to hear what you think.

I aim to be as compassionate as possible in the workplace and when I've been The Boss I act the same way. Where I think left and right will fundamentally split is where that compassion is supposed to come from. A rightwinger -- broadly speaking -- believes that compassion should be voluntary and should be based on personal values instead of imposed values from the government. A leftwinger conversely believes that unless we have sufficient laws in place, employers will act as uncompassionately as it is legally allowed to do so. Stockholders and board members bitches!

I agree with both sides. We can't assume the free market will weed out immoral businesses on its own, because the premise assumes that the consumer will weigh their (unrelated) moral feelings higher than their desire to buy a product and will therefore refuse to buy products from immoral companies. Apple and Nike prove this to be false, and we have examples going back to colonial era (where so-called corporate branding really started to take hold) and even before.

We also cannot assume that laws will compel people to be model employers / employees. Virtue and moral behavior must necessarily come from outside government and must inform government. Otherwise the government just becomes a closed loop of self-supporting virtues (hmmm.....)

Workplace democracy is tricky. I could argue that 10 different ways. It's a helpful way to keep the line-workers in check. It's a way to "get them involved". It's a way to steer a corporation into the dirt. It's a way to preserve a business culture. Workplace democracy can take a variety of forms, so I guess I'd need to know more about your version of a "healthy" workplace democracy to comment further. I don't think my employer owes me anything more than a paycheck, and while I get along with my co-workers and obey my bosses, I view our relationship as an antagonistic one. If I want a raise, I believe I have to go for it, and I don't assume my corporation will "take care of me", though I am grateful for the select areas where it does (like healthcare).

Treating your employer in a transactional way seems the most sane, to me.

On the inconsistency point I'd like to add that I'm a big fan of the Jordan-Peterson-view that talking should be like thinking out loud. You should obviously strive for consistency, but finding inconsistency shouldn't be some stupid gotcha game, where you dismiss people for a misapprehension. We are all improvising, and I don't care that you made a logical error or an off-colour joke some time in 2007.

In the US people have started supporting the 2 political parties like they're sports teams, hooliganism and all. I think before you said that the 2 party system wasn't the biggest problem, but I'm telling you man, it's a problem

no prob, keep em coming

I mean, I think having two parties causes problems, but it also solves problems. I hope that doesn't feel like a dodge because I'm not trying to dodge.

Any political bloc is going to have insane, illogical cheerleading and hooliganism. Forcing 90% of the discourse into two parties has the (beneficial, IMO) effect of forcing both parties to play nice and keep their crazier parts in check. Failing to do so can lead to instability and eventually party collapse. The alternative is to ban parties and ban ideologies from political discourse, which a lot of Euro countries do. Someone needs to keep the crazy parts in check, it's just a question of what mechanic works best without stomping on freedom? A question as old as human civilization...

I think the USA's system works. We don't outright ban communists or neonazis from running for office, and yet somehow our government isn't crammed full of overt neonazis and communists (in spite of what some politicians and media pundits may wish for us to believe).

 

[daveonezero]

Government and industries working together is the problem.

A totally private company with no ties to the government can ban whatever it wants. The Government being involved as the enforcement arm is the wrong part.

 

[QSD]

You and me both.

LOL. I think you're a fellow shmupper so I'll just reply with

I aim to be as compassionate as possible in the workplace and when I've been The Boss I act the same way. Where I think left and right will fundamentally split is where that compassion is supposed to come from. A rightwinger -- broadly speaking -- believes that compassion should be voluntary and should be based on personal values instead of imposed values from the government. A leftwinger conversely believes that unless we have sufficient laws in place, employers will act as uncompassionately as it is legally allowed to do so. Stockholders and board members bitches!

Can I agree with both? Obviously it's not preferable to have government dictate ethics, I'd rather that employers and employees do so of their own volition. However I still do believe that left to their own devices corporations can behave in shockingly evil ways and need to be accountable.

I agree with both sides. We can't assume the free market will weed out immoral businesses on its own, because the premise assumes that the consumer will weigh their (unrelated) moral feelings higher than their desire to buy a product and will therefore refuse to buy products from immoral companies. Apple and Nike prove this to be false, and we have examples going back to colonial era (where so-called corporate branding really started to take hold) and even before.

I sense there's still the carcass here of a previously held classic "homo economicus" view of consumer behaviour. Psychology 101 (I'm a social psychologist by education) is that people do not "weigh" their product choices. They buy based almost entirely on irrational feelings and impulses, which are often dictated/manipulated in no small degree by advertising and branding. Other than that, agree (obviously)

We also cannot assume that laws will compel people to be model employers / employees. Virtue and moral behavior must necessarily come from outside government and must inform government. Otherwise the government just becomes a closed loop of self-supporting virtues (hmmm.....)

I agree that laws won't always compel good behaviour and can end up causing bureaucratic swamps. But I assume you do agree there should be laws against murder and theft? I mean you can't just rely on 'outside sources'?

Workplace democracy is tricky. I could argue that 10 different ways. It's a helpful way to keep the line-workers in check. It's a way to "get them involved". It's a way to steer a corporation into the dirt. It's a way to preserve a business culture. Workplace democracy can take a variety of forms, so I guess I'd need to know more about your version of a "healthy" workplace democracy to comment further. I don't think my employer owes me anything more than a paycheck, and while I get along with my co-workers and obey my bosses, I view our relationship as an antagonistic one. If I want a raise, I believe I have to go for it, and I don't assume my corporation will "take care of me", though I am grateful for the select areas where it does (like healthcare).

Treating your employer in a transactional way seems the most sane, to me.

Hmm yeah I have to admit I haven't given it enough thought yet to formulate a coherent proposition, it's just a phrase I read recently and I thought 'yeah why not'? The 'nobody owes you nothing' mindset is pretty common among 'right wing' thinking... I find it kind of nihilistic. I work in psychiatric care, and I really get a lot of mileage out of the fact that I work in a team of people that has a lot of internal solidarity (yay classic socialist term there) . We have a pretty familial relationship with each other and basically that keeps me straight during these tough lockdown times. I feel pretty sorry for people who have to work in an "everyone for themselves" rat race type place.

I mean, I think having two parties causes problems, but it also solves problems.

I get that, here in holland a lot of legislation is a compromise which sometimes doesn't make it easier to implement

I hope that doesn't feel like a dodge because I'm not trying to dodge.

Any political bloc is going to have insane, illogical cheerleading and hooliganism. Forcing 90% of the discourse into two parties has the (beneficial, IMO) effect of forcing both parties to play nice and keep their crazier parts in check.

Wait what? Let me do a double take here... Donald Trump just set a mob of Qanon crazies upon the capitol which has prompted a large scale clamp down on conservative speech by the democrats. I don't think there's a lot of playing nice, and ehm, about those crazier parts...

Failing to do so can lead to instability and eventually party collapse.

You don't say... oh and let's not forget about social collapse

The alternative is to ban parties and ban ideologies from political discourse, which a lot of Euro countries do.

No the alternative is to get more, better parties. You do have to get rid of or reduce the influence of the (utterly corrupt) existing parties first, which could possibly involve some large scale strikes or some such

Someone needs to keep the crazy parts in check, it's just a question of what mechanic works best without stomping on freedom? A question as old as human civilization...

Well I hope you find a qualified mechanic soon, because the one you have now is fucking up the nuts and bolts pretty badly

I think the USA's system works.

Look outside man! Your country is teetering on the brink. I guess I'll just have to get my hammer and sickle from Uncle Karl for this last bit... One of the most stable and replicable findings in social psychology/sociology is that if society is perceived as more unequal (in terms of wealth/income/status) it becomes more violent. More people opt out of what they believe to be a rigged system and resort to violence and crime. One pretty simple way of understanding the current waves of political violence in the USA is because of rising inequality. A lot of poor, not-too-bright people are feeling pretty left out and shafted by 'the elites' and are ample prey for demagogues, pundits and influencers (and in some really sad cases, Dave Rubin). I believe that if the current political climate can't convince you, than godspeed to you sir. I'm afraid you may receive no further warnings.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

LOL. I think you're a fellow shmupper so I'll just reply with

Can I agree with both? Obviously it's not preferable to have government dictate ethics, I'd rather that employers and employees do so of their own volition. However I still do believe that left to their own devices corporations can behave in shockingly evil ways and need to be accountable.


I sense there's still the carcass here of a previously held classic "homo economicus" view of consumer behaviour. Psychology 101 (I'm a social psychologist by education) is that people do not "weigh" their product choices. They buy based almost entirely on irrational feelings and impulses, which are often dictated/manipulated in no small degree by advertising and branding. Other than that, agree (obviously)

I agree that laws won't always compel good behaviour and can end up causing bureaucratic swamps. But I assume you do agree there should be laws against murder and theft? I mean you can't just rely on 'outside sources'?

Yeah, I think we're on the same page. I think humans will always contain an animal side (sin, if we're speaking theologically) and no system will be able to do away with this side. Any system is also a potential tool for acting out our animal side, so there's a danger from that angle as well. We have to have a careful balance of laws, cultural norms, social ostracization methods, etc etc to keep the human animal in check without ourselves becoming inhumane and authoritarian. Impossible balance to maintain for mere mortals. I think people are evil by default, taught to be good. If there's any point I want to get across, it's that I don't believe a system can keep these human tendencies 100% in check, and I don't believe free markets will keep them in check fully either. Different approaches for different issues that need solving. That's why a ton of smart brainiacs have written about economic theory and ethical economics and worker rights and ownership of the means of production and all kinds of things.

We should try to make better laws and to improve things, knowing that we can be flawed and selfish which is passed on to the systems we create. We require tools to examine, discuss, and pick apart which systems work and why they work. This is why meta-principles like free speech must always be protected and fought for. If it is the case that any system is imperfect, then we must always leave ourselves the means to reform and improve any given system. A system that needs to squelch this feedback in order to remain in power is a flawed system.

Hmm yeah I have to admit I haven't given it enough thought yet to formulate a coherent proposition, it's just a phrase I read recently and I thought 'yeah why not'? The 'nobody owes you nothing' mindset is pretty common among 'right wing' thinking... I find it kind of nihilistic. I work in psychiatric care, and I really get a lot of mileage out of the fact that I work in a team of people that has a lot of internal solidarity (yay classic socialist term there) . We have a pretty familial relationship with each other and basically that keeps me straight during these tough lockdown times. I feel pretty sorry for people who have to work in an "everyone for themselves" rat race type place.

Nihilism is widespread across all ideologies. I can't say i mind, though, because it's easy to identify when you know what to look for, and it purges weak doctrines. I'd say the "everyone for themselves" attitude isn't unique to any side, either, it is just expressed differently depending on the person. We do have to choose to follow some underlying moral to keep ourselves away from this attitude though. I think it's the default, secular mindset of capitalism, so if we don't pair capitalism with something else (hopefully a complimentary ideology) then it will spiral into inhumane for-profit megalomania.

I get that, here in holland a lot of legislation is a compromise which sometimes doesn't make it easier to implement

Wait what? Let me do a double take here... Donald Trump just set a mob of Qanon crazies upon the capitol which has prompted a large scale clamp down on conservative speech by the democrats. I don't think there's a lot of playing nice, and ehm, about those crazier parts...


You don't say... oh and let's not forget about social collapse

No the alternative is to get more, better parties. You do have to get rid of or reduce the influence of the (utterly corrupt) existing parties first, which could possibly involve some large scale strikes or some such

Well I hope you find a qualified mechanic soon, because the one you have now is fucking up the nuts and bolts pretty badly

Look outside man! Your country is teetering on the brink. I guess I'll just have to get my hammer and sickle from Uncle Karl for this last bit... One of the most stable and replicable findings in social psychology/sociology is that if society is perceived as more unequal (in terms of wealth/income/status) it becomes more violent. More people opt out of what they believe to be a rigged system and resort to violence and crime. One pretty simple way of understanding the current waves of political violence in the USA is because of rising inequality. A lot of poor, not-too-bright people are feeling pretty left out and shafted by 'the elites' and are ample prey for demagogues. I believe that if the current political climate can't convince you, than godspeed to you sir. I'm afraid you may receive no further warnings.

I'm not gonna say you're wrong on your observations, but the safe bet is to wait and see. We're not teetering on the brink, despite what our media-puppeteers would like people to believe.