7 ms·

In practical political terms (western and otherwise), "because freedom" is rarely a winning political tact. The legalization of cannabis was driven by cannabis

In practical political terms (western and otherwise), "because freedom" is rarely a winning political tact. The legalization of cannabis was driven by cannabis being normalized. The news presenter and your daughter smoke grass. It was similar with gay right. Marriage rights, parental rights and such were driven first by "born this way," argueing that sexuality is unchangeable. Then, it came via normalisation as people came out and your friend end turned out to be gay. Eventually people concluded that homosexuality is fine, not a vice. "I think it's wrong, but freedom" only plays a role after the gay rights side wins. The dissenters can console themselves with it and put the issue to bed. That doesn't mean no one actually idealises freedom, but it rarely adds up to political change.

nukeop 8y ago
Any social sentiment can change with a persistent media campaign lasting 10-15 years, people are impressionable and don't form their own opinions.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  People are social animals. Our opinions on norms (homosexuality, cannabis, murder, monogamy..) are are generated socially. Individuals forming their own opinions, sharing them, dissenting and such is what social norms are made from... Individuals are drawing from the herd brain and contributing to it. No one's opinions are their own. If you grew up in a different time and place, your opinions would be different.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
>> In practical political terms (western and otherwise), "because freedom" is rarely a winning political tact. Isn't it? It seems to me that Brexit in particular happened because the people who voted for it embraced a message of "taking back control", and similar arguments about political freedom from the EU that was portrayed as oppressive and undemocratic, etc. (Though it's hard to know- I think a much more accurate model of the Brexit vote was that the country flipped a coin).
- dalbasal 8y ago
  This is freedom in a rhetorical sense, and a national sense. The argument is/was that the UK isn't free because of europe, not that individuals aren't free. This is a lot different then the personal freedom I refer to, IMO. You could also argue that remain is the "liberty side," freedom of movement, capital & goods. Being rhetorical and abstract, it just begets abstract questions like "what is freedom?" or "what's a nation?" Cannabis & gay rights are personal, so less abstract. There's no sane way to argue that freedom to be smoke pot (also crack, cyanide) is not a freedom. In any case, no brexiter argues that europe works great, but we need out because freedom. That'd be the test, IMO. I think cannabis, homosexuality or whatever is bad, but it should be legal because freedom. My point/argument is that this doesn't work politically. People may justify the (new or old) status quo with because freedom, but it doesn't drive change. Cannabis & homosexuality laws change because people stop considering it a terrible vice, generally.

nukeop 8y ago

Any social sentiment can change with a persistent media campaign lasting 10-15 years, people are impressionable and don't form their own opinions.

dalbasal 8y ago
People are social animals. Our opinions on norms (homosexuality, cannabis, murder, monogamy..) are are generated socially. Individuals forming their own opinions, sharing them, dissenting and such is what social norms are made from... Individuals are drawing from the herd brain and contributing to it. No one's opinions are their own. If you grew up in a different time and place, your opinions would be different.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

>> In practical political terms (western and otherwise), "because freedom" is rarely a winning political tact. Isn't it? It seems to me that Brexit in particular happened because the people who voted for it embraced a message of "taking back control", and similar arguments about political freedom from the EU that was portrayed as oppressive and undemocratic, etc. (Though it's hard to know- I think a much more accurate model of the Brexit vote was that the country flipped a coin).

dalbasal 8y ago
This is freedom in a rhetorical sense, and a national sense. The argument is/was that the UK isn't free because of europe, not that individuals aren't free. This is a lot different then the personal freedom I refer to, IMO. You could also argue that remain is the "liberty side," freedom of movement, capital & goods. Being rhetorical and abstract, it just begets abstract questions like "what is freedom?" or "what's a nation?" Cannabis & gay rights are personal, so less abstract. There's no sane way to argue that freedom to be smoke pot (also crack, cyanide) is not a freedom. In any case, no brexiter argues that europe works great, but we need out because freedom. That'd be the test, IMO. I think cannabis, homosexuality or whatever is bad, but it should be legal because freedom. My point/argument is that this doesn't work politically. People may justify the (new or old) status quo with because freedom, but it doesn't drive change. Cannabis & homosexuality laws change because people stop considering it a terrible vice, generally.