4 ms·

Sure, by the private individual. The problem is many things that were major moments in world history didn't pass the ruling-class's "minimum legitimacy require

by unit91 8y ago

Sure, by the private individual. The problem is many things that were major moments in world history didn't pass the ruling-class's "minimum legitimacy requirement" at the time. Top-of-my-head examples: the Magna Carta, the Protestant Reformation, Indian Independence, anybody else's independence, Snowden, etc.

pjc50 8y ago
The Magna Carta is literally an agreement among the ruling class. By "legitimacy" I don't mean that people agree with the conclusion being expressed, but that people agree it's at least an attempt at a structured argument based on actual facts. The 95 Theses were complaints against real injustices, not a set of fabricated smears. Colonial independences generally were discussable - and discussed - at the time and in advance of their happening.
- unit91 8y ago
  > The Magna Carta is literally an agreement among the ruling class. Not in the way you're thinking. This is at the time when the King had absolute or near absolute authority. King John was the ruling class. While it was the English nobility that opposed the king, they did so (1) at great risk to their own safety, and (2) as the only ones in a position to do so. Certainly no serf could have accomplished this -- they would have been killed. Second sentence of the (excellent) Wikipedia article about it: > First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
  - takluyver 8y ago
    > the King had absolute or near absolute authority. King John was the ruling class. In theory, perhaps. But the barons could and did challenge the King with a degree of success. The king did not have a practical monopoly on the use of force. So the description of Magna Carta as an 'agreement among the ruling class' seems reasonable.
- mistermann 8y ago
  > but that people agree it's at least an attempt at a structured argument based on actual facts This is far easier said than done. Just for starters, which "people" get to decide, and that's not even getting into the messy details at analyzing any arguments or facts.
  - 2020-3030 8y ago
    We know who gets to decide - the owners of the communications platform and those who influence them. If Apple wanted to be more inclusive in the decision making, they could choose to do so.
    - mistermann 8y ago
      More precisely: We know who gets to decide - the owners of the communications platform and those who influence them, under current democratic legislation, which is completely subject to change according to the will of the citizens of a democratic country. It's interesting how easy it is to observe stereotypical right-wing pedantically technical justification behaviors be adopted by the left (feel free to correct me if my assumption is wrong) as the topic of specific discussion moves around various dimensions of reality.
tobylane 8y ago
What is the major moment in this Infowars topic?
- unit91 8y ago
  Step back and see the bigger picture. I think most of us think Infowars is a weird nuisance. But I was responding to the claim that political opinion should have to meet a pre-approved "minimum legitimacy requirement". If this is normalized, no other, actually important issue will be able to gain traction.
- travmatt 8y ago
  It’s either the targeted harassment campaigns against parents who’ve lost children, or the attempts to push the idea that liberals are planning a civil war and they need to be violently resisted. It may sound like he’s trying to incite violence but that’s just because you haven’t stepped back and appreciated the larger picture.
stuckinarut 8y ago
and yet all those things happened, in many cases without having to extend free speech to insane degrees.

by unit91 8y ago

pjc50 8y ago

The Magna Carta is literally an agreement among the ruling class. By "legitimacy" I don't mean that people agree with the conclusion being expressed, but that people agree it's at least an attempt at a structured argument based on actual facts. The 95 Theses were complaints against real injustices, not a set of fabricated smears. Colonial independences generally were discussable - and discussed - at the time and in advance of their happening.

unit91 8y ago
> The Magna Carta is literally an agreement among the ruling class. Not in the way you're thinking. This is at the time when the King had absolute or near absolute authority. King John was the ruling class. While it was the English nobility that opposed the king, they did so (1) at great risk to their own safety, and (2) as the only ones in a position to do so. Certainly no serf could have accomplished this -- they would have been killed. Second sentence of the (excellent) Wikipedia article about it: > First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
- takluyver 8y ago
  > the King had absolute or near absolute authority. King John was the ruling class. In theory, perhaps. But the barons could and did challenge the King with a degree of success. The king did not have a practical monopoly on the use of force. So the description of Magna Carta as an 'agreement among the ruling class' seems reasonable.
mistermann 8y ago
> but that people agree it's at least an attempt at a structured argument based on actual facts This is far easier said than done. Just for starters, which "people" get to decide, and that's not even getting into the messy details at analyzing any arguments or facts.
- 2020-3030 8y ago
  We know who gets to decide - the owners of the communications platform and those who influence them. If Apple wanted to be more inclusive in the decision making, they could choose to do so.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    More precisely: We know who gets to decide - the owners of the communications platform and those who influence them, under current democratic legislation, which is completely subject to change according to the will of the citizens of a democratic country. It's interesting how easy it is to observe stereotypical right-wing pedantically technical justification behaviors be adopted by the left (feel free to correct me if my assumption is wrong) as the topic of specific discussion moves around various dimensions of reality.

tobylane 8y ago

What is the major moment in this Infowars topic?

unit91 8y ago
Step back and see the bigger picture. I think most of us think Infowars is a weird nuisance. But I was responding to the claim that political opinion should have to meet a pre-approved "minimum legitimacy requirement". If this is normalized, no other, actually important issue will be able to gain traction.
travmatt 8y ago
It’s either the targeted harassment campaigns against parents who’ve lost children, or the attempts to push the idea that liberals are planning a civil war and they need to be violently resisted. It may sound like he’s trying to incite violence but that’s just because you haven’t stepped back and appreciated the larger picture.

stuckinarut 8y ago

and yet all those things happened, in many cases without having to extend free speech to insane degrees.