10 ms·

From the article: Two key identifying marks of dystopia are social regimentation and an inevitable totalitarianism. "Conform or be cast out." --Rush, Subdivisi

From the article: Two key identifying marks of dystopia are social regimentation and an inevitable totalitarianism. "Conform or be cast out." --Rush, Subdivisions, Signals, 1982 "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences." From the article: Next, dystopia is marked by dehumanization How one tweet can ruin your life | Jon Ronson -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAIP6fI0NAI From the article: The abuse of technology is another characteristic of dystopia. Google. Facebook. From the article: Next, dystopia empowers a new class of rulers and uses propaganda and state terror to maintain the power of the regime...The ultimate result of dystopia can be seen in the tragedy of an individual. Instead of only relying on state terror, there is a new brand of current day authoritarianism which is trying to use non-state power through media, social media, and non-governmental civic groups. The new twist is to erode freedom of speech, but not have it be technically illegal, because the government isn't doing it. The new twist is to erode due process and presumption of innocence, but it's not technically illegal, because trial by public opinion and media isn't a judicial process. The new twist is to disenfranchise people, but not in person, only online and in social media, because it's not "technically illegal." However, all of the above violates various principles of individual rights in spirit. To me, they are all dishonest means of having coercive, authoritarian effects on people at large, without being "technically illegal." People who actually believe in universal principles of human rights don't try and coerce people. People who actually believe in those principles actually try to convince people, and when they can't convince, they listen. It's authoritarians who have succumbed to groupthink who seek to use power to coerce people into acquiescence. In my life experience, it's only those who believe another group are less than human, who give up dialogue and trying to convince.

anigbrowl 8y ago
There's a story in the news today about a Coast Guard lieutenant with extreme political views who was planning to go on an Anders Breivik style murder spree. Your model doesn't seem to include people who have zero interest in dialogue or persuasion and are willing to simply eliminate people they find disagreeable. Regrettably, it's not hard to find people who subscribe to eliminationist ideologies, and having found them it is not difficult to figure out the content of such ideologies. At what point do you consider the listening process sufficient for conclusions to be drawn, or any other action to be taken? If all you do is gather data and you never analyze or act upon it, what use is it?
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Your model doesn't seem to include people who have zero interest in dialogue or persuasion and are willing to simply eliminate people they find disagreeable. I see this time and time again: Instead of engaging with dissenters, forums, groups of all kinds just evict people who are perfectly willing to talk. In principle, that's also acting to "simply eliminate people they find disagreeable." Often, it turns out that saying, "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences," turns out to be a way to "find people who subscribe to eliminationist ideologies." They are not as bad, by any means. Instead of using bullets, they might use accusations and namecalling instead. In the past few years, people claiming to be on the Left have even used clubs, vandalism, and assault. At what point do you consider the listening process sufficient for conclusions to be drawn, or any other action to be taken? Certainly someone who reaches the level of Anders Breivik's extremism is beyond talking to. However, it's the height of arrogance and immorality to treat people who are perfectly willing to talk as if they are him. What I see so much of is the treatment of sincere questions as if they are such extremism. If all you do is gather data and you never analyze or act upon it, what use is it? What I see most of, is people not gathering data, not communicating, and eliminating first, asking questions never. "You are either with us, or against us." It stunk to high heaven when George W. Bush said it. It's just as coercive and authoritarian when such tactics are used by others today. (Worse, when it's used by people who are supposed to be against such things!) If you would fear the unreasonable who are beyond talking to, it behooves you to reach out to those perfectly willing to talk. In fact, I can confidently say that you can find plenty of common ground, if you look hard enough. In 2019, in the current climate, the easy, facile thing to do is to give into the outrage mongering, your personal information bubble, and the groupthink and othering of the other side.
  - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
    Ok but if someone is just perfectly willing to talk about how Breivik is a hero and they wish more people would have the guts to do what he did it is of course not the same as actually doing what Breivik did but it seems sort of not worth talking to either, like if Breivik were the enemy of life they would be providing aid and comfort to the enemy without ever actually going out and shooting a bunch of people.
freshhawk 8y ago
You are describing the concept of "social norms" and "taboos" and "shunning" in a particularly convoluted and confused way. You are talking about people being shunned and gossiped about like it is on par with being kidnapped by armed government agents and confined in a cell. Like going to jail or being killed and getting cancelled on twitter are close enough to the same thing that the same philosophical framework applies. I'd suggest you back up and re-evaluate how you got here.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  You are talking about people being shunned and gossiped about like it is on par with being kidnapped by armed government agents and confined in a cell. So one is bad stuff on the level of violent terrorists and intelligence agencies, and another is bad stuff on the level of mean girls in high school? No disagreement there. Both of those stink. Then, there's bad on the level of groups of people going around in masks, using anonymity to get away with beating people up (1), committing vandalism, and terrorism on a level where universities have to hire $600,000 in security. That's also happening. (Shouldn't this be the sad, tragic legacy of the past?) Namecalling, exclusion, silencing -- none of these is intellectually worthy. None of these gets us closer to the truth. All they do is fuel and add legitimacy to the unreasonable extremists and prevent the reasonable discussions from being had. Like going to jail or being killed and getting cancelled on twitter are close enough to the same thing that the same philosophical framework applies. The common mechanism is the coercion in contrast to convincing. The key concept is that authoritarianism. I'd suggest you back up and re-evaluate how you got here. I'm not backing up. It's high time that lots of people stopped backing up and started calling out all the authoritarianism which is supposedly happening in the name of human freedom. It's coercion going against human freedom. If you are really on the side of justice, then when given the opportunity to hear people out and talk, you hear people out and talk. The side of justice, in the end, finally convinces through appeal to universal principle, not through force alone. In the long arc of history, it's clear who uses force alone. (Even in WWII, the victory of military arms would have meant just another war, if it weren't for the demonstration of principles and generosity by the US as victors. The subsequent cold war was won by the truth of our having a better system, not authoritarianism.) (1 -- Even beating innocent people up, because they are too taken by anger to tell the difference.)
watwut 8y ago
> People who actually believe in those principles actually try to convince people, and when they can't convince, they listen. While I agree with the rest, this is just naive. You cant convince those who are don't debate in good faith. You can defeat them or you can convince third parties, but trying to convince these is lost cause. You cant change them, you can only change environment so that they cant cause much harm.
tomp 8y ago
Hey, thanks for your comments in this thread. We need more people to speak up against coercion and authoritarianism, especially when committed in the name of the good (looking at you, Left)! I wish I could do more than just upvote and favourite your comments...
- stcredzero 8y ago
  I wish I could do more than just upvote and favourite your comments... Yes you can do more. Speak the truth. Pick your battles wisely, but be forthright and speak up!
  - tomp 8y ago
    Ah I definitely do. Although not as eloquently as you :)
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      Just be honest and forthright. Then edit for the active voice and brevity. And again, pick your battles.
TomMckenny 8y ago
>People who actually believe in those principles actually try to convince people Then convince the offenders. Preaching to those who are already outraged or the uninvolved just fans their emotions too and moves further and further away from reasoned discourse. >because trial by public opinion and media isn't a judicial process This has indeed been a problem in the US for decades where anyone accused of any crime has their face plastered on the evening news for ratings. Never is there a retraction when released or upon acquittal. Not that it would do any good as the damage is irreparable. Now that it's starting to happen to powerful people, the issue is finally being raised. I'm going to guess the eventual resolution will be some lawsuit system that makes publishing accusations of the powerful financially impossible while keeping open season on ordinary people.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  As it's currently formulated, it's easier to publish stuff about public figures than private individuals. The bar for showing defamation of private figures is lower.

anigbrowl 8y ago

There's a story in the news today about a Coast Guard lieutenant with extreme political views who was planning to go on an Anders Breivik style murder spree. Your model doesn't seem to include people who have zero interest in dialogue or persuasion and are willing to simply eliminate people they find disagreeable. Regrettably, it's not hard to find people who subscribe to eliminationist ideologies, and having found them it is not difficult to figure out the content of such ideologies. At what point do you consider the listening process sufficient for conclusions to be drawn, or any other action to be taken? If all you do is gather data and you never analyze or act upon it, what use is it?

stcredzero 8y ago
Your model doesn't seem to include people who have zero interest in dialogue or persuasion and are willing to simply eliminate people they find disagreeable. I see this time and time again: Instead of engaging with dissenters, forums, groups of all kinds just evict people who are perfectly willing to talk. In principle, that's also acting to "simply eliminate people they find disagreeable." Often, it turns out that saying, "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences," turns out to be a way to "find people who subscribe to eliminationist ideologies." They are not as bad, by any means. Instead of using bullets, they might use accusations and namecalling instead. In the past few years, people claiming to be on the Left have even used clubs, vandalism, and assault. At what point do you consider the listening process sufficient for conclusions to be drawn, or any other action to be taken? Certainly someone who reaches the level of Anders Breivik's extremism is beyond talking to. However, it's the height of arrogance and immorality to treat people who are perfectly willing to talk as if they are him. What I see so much of is the treatment of sincere questions as if they are such extremism. If all you do is gather data and you never analyze or act upon it, what use is it? What I see most of, is people not gathering data, not communicating, and eliminating first, asking questions never. "You are either with us, or against us." It stunk to high heaven when George W. Bush said it. It's just as coercive and authoritarian when such tactics are used by others today. (Worse, when it's used by people who are supposed to be against such things!) If you would fear the unreasonable who are beyond talking to, it behooves you to reach out to those perfectly willing to talk. In fact, I can confidently say that you can find plenty of common ground, if you look hard enough. In 2019, in the current climate, the easy, facile thing to do is to give into the outrage mongering, your personal information bubble, and the groupthink and othering of the other side.
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  Ok but if someone is just perfectly willing to talk about how Breivik is a hero and they wish more people would have the guts to do what he did it is of course not the same as actually doing what Breivik did but it seems sort of not worth talking to either, like if Breivik were the enemy of life they would be providing aid and comfort to the enemy without ever actually going out and shooting a bunch of people.

freshhawk 8y ago

You are describing the concept of "social norms" and "taboos" and "shunning" in a particularly convoluted and confused way. You are talking about people being shunned and gossiped about like it is on par with being kidnapped by armed government agents and confined in a cell. Like going to jail or being killed and getting cancelled on twitter are close enough to the same thing that the same philosophical framework applies. I'd suggest you back up and re-evaluate how you got here.

stcredzero 8y ago
You are talking about people being shunned and gossiped about like it is on par with being kidnapped by armed government agents and confined in a cell. So one is bad stuff on the level of violent terrorists and intelligence agencies, and another is bad stuff on the level of mean girls in high school? No disagreement there. Both of those stink. Then, there's bad on the level of groups of people going around in masks, using anonymity to get away with beating people up (1), committing vandalism, and terrorism on a level where universities have to hire $600,000 in security. That's also happening. (Shouldn't this be the sad, tragic legacy of the past?) Namecalling, exclusion, silencing -- none of these is intellectually worthy. None of these gets us closer to the truth. All they do is fuel and add legitimacy to the unreasonable extremists and prevent the reasonable discussions from being had. Like going to jail or being killed and getting cancelled on twitter are close enough to the same thing that the same philosophical framework applies. The common mechanism is the coercion in contrast to convincing. The key concept is that authoritarianism. I'd suggest you back up and re-evaluate how you got here. I'm not backing up. It's high time that lots of people stopped backing up and started calling out all the authoritarianism which is supposedly happening in the name of human freedom. It's coercion going against human freedom. If you are really on the side of justice, then when given the opportunity to hear people out and talk, you hear people out and talk. The side of justice, in the end, finally convinces through appeal to universal principle, not through force alone. In the long arc of history, it's clear who uses force alone. (Even in WWII, the victory of military arms would have meant just another war, if it weren't for the demonstration of principles and generosity by the US as victors. The subsequent cold war was won by the truth of our having a better system, not authoritarianism.) (1 -- Even beating innocent people up, because they are too taken by anger to tell the difference.)

watwut 8y ago

> People who actually believe in those principles actually try to convince people, and when they can't convince, they listen. While I agree with the rest, this is just naive. You cant convince those who are don't debate in good faith. You can defeat them or you can convince third parties, but trying to convince these is lost cause. You cant change them, you can only change environment so that they cant cause much harm.

tomp 8y ago

Hey, thanks for your comments in this thread. We need more people to speak up against coercion and authoritarianism, especially when committed in the name of the good (looking at you, Left)! I wish I could do more than just upvote and favourite your comments...

stcredzero 8y ago
I wish I could do more than just upvote and favourite your comments... Yes you can do more. Speak the truth. Pick your battles wisely, but be forthright and speak up!
- tomp 8y ago
  Ah I definitely do. Although not as eloquently as you :)
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Just be honest and forthright. Then edit for the active voice and brevity. And again, pick your battles.

TomMckenny 8y ago

>People who actually believe in those principles actually try to convince people Then convince the offenders. Preaching to those who are already outraged or the uninvolved just fans their emotions too and moves further and further away from reasoned discourse. >because trial by public opinion and media isn't a judicial process This has indeed been a problem in the US for decades where anyone accused of any crime has their face plastered on the evening news for ratings. Never is there a retraction when released or upon acquittal. Not that it would do any good as the damage is irreparable. Now that it's starting to happen to powerful people, the issue is finally being raised. I'm going to guess the eventual resolution will be some lawsuit system that makes publishing accusations of the powerful financially impossible while keeping open season on ordinary people.

stcredzero 8y ago
As it's currently formulated, it's easier to publish stuff about public figures than private individuals. The bar for showing defamation of private figures is lower.