3 ms·

> rather than because they understand what is coming and are fine with it. Sorry if it wasn't clear, i do believe people know the consequences of surveillance

> rather than because they understand what is coming and are fine with it. Sorry if it wasn't clear, i do believe people know the consequences of surveillance and are OK with it. An Authoritarian state does not let its citizens know they are living in an authoritarian state. It oppresses or annihilates minorities to create a golden cage for the rest. Thankfully, liberal democracies are free enough so audiences in the west are informed of the consequences of surveilance (humiliating border controls, incarceration, police brutality), and they are largely OK with it. I don't see evidence to the contrary. > How is that a response to authoritarianism not being compatible with democracy? Authoritarianism has gradations and is not incompatible with democracy. Democracy may protect from extreme authoritarianism but it doesn't guarantee liberalism.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> Thankfully, liberal democracies are free enough so audiences in the west are informed of the consequences of surveilance (humiliating border controls, incarceration, police brutality), and they are largely OK with it. I don't see evidence to the contrary. So, you think that the general public understands what it is like to live in a police state, how corruption wastes resources that they otherwise could benefit from, what negative consequences they themselves can expect further down the road? If you ask me, most people are not even really aware of the things you list. Most people believe those things are a small necessary evil that you need to ensure safety, or individual mistakes that happen, and and it's not something they would ever experience themselves, because they believe that the state is fair and friendly and would only ever do such things to people who really did bad things, which they themselves obviously aren't, as any officer would immediately recognize. People have no fucking clue how power structures work, how their data is actually being used, how bad corruption can get, how inhuman governments can act against them. They have no fucking clue right up to the moment where they are the victim and they are totally surprised what is happening to them. > Authoritarianism has gradations and is not incompatible with democracy. Democracy may protect from extreme authoritarianism but it doesn't guarantee liberalism. How isn't that the exact same "but structurally sound buildings have burned down!" response as before? Nobody is claiming that democracy guarantees liberalism, rather this is all about the fact that you can not have democracy without liberalism. Democracies are perfectly capable of ending liberalism, and have done so many times, but with it they necessarily end democracy. Either people can make free decision in their own best interest, or they have to follow what the authority dictates. A democracy in which authoritarianism rules is only a democracy in name, but not in function, just as the GDR was. If the dictator tells you who you have to vote for, that is not a democracy, no matter how much you get to vote.
- buboard 7y ago
  > Most people believe those things are a small necessary evil that you need to ensure safety, I believe the same too, but not that people are clueless. People are quite aware (imperfectly , but still pretty well) of what can go wrong, and they 've decided that losing some liberties is a small price to pay. It's been too many years of revelations and media campaigns. I think at this point we just have to admit that most people don't mind, not that they don't know. That's what leads many people to say that true freedom is not compatible with democracy. > A democracy in which authoritarianism rules is only a democracy in name, but not in function, just as the GDR was. Right, but where do you draw the line. Did the germans in 1933 think they have a democracy? Do Turks or Russians today think they have a democracy? It's easy to tell post-facto, or from the outside, not so easy when it's happening in real time. Do the UK or US think they have a liberal democracy ? absolutely. Is that 100% true? less clear
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
    > People are quite aware (imperfectly , but still pretty well) of what can go wrong, and they 've decided that losing some liberties is a small price to pay. In other words: They do not understand that they are losing all liberties? > It's been too many years of revelations and media campaigns. I think at this point we just have to admit that most people don't mind, not that they don't know. I very much disagree. Do you have an idea what media people consume? What absolute bullshit they are being fed? Do you really think that people on that basis have an accurate understanding of where all of this will lead? > Right, but where do you draw the line. You don't, there is no need to, it's not a binary matter. You might for pragmatic reasons in order to have terms to use for effective communication, but there is no actual line between "dictatorship" and "democracy", between "libertarianism" and "totalitarianism", it's a scale with many steps in between the two extremes. The point is that just because something might be considered a democracy under some pragmatic definition, doesn't mean it's therefore equivalent to everything else that you might label a democracy. > Did the germans in 1933 think they have a democracy? Do Turks or Russians today think they have a democracy? I think that's somewhat the wrong question to ask, in that it assumes "the Germans", "the Turks", or "the Russians" to be homogeneous groups. There most definitely were and are lots of people in all of those societies who would not consider their political system a functional democracy. > It's easy to tell post-facto, or from the outside, not so easy when it's happening in real time. Well, but is that actually true? If you understand power structures somewhat, it's not really that hard to see, is it? It seems to me this is much more a matter of competence than of your location in time or space. While it may be hard to get the full picture of what is going on, it's not really that hard to see whether you are free to say whatever you want, to inform yourself about whatever you want, to vote securely, i.e., whether the structural prerequesites for a democracy are there. It's just that a lot of people are not competent at recognizing what authoritarianism looks like and are more than willing to accept any authoritarian apologetics they are presented with. > Do the UK or US think they have a liberal democracy ? absolutely. Is that 100% true? less clear But do they? As above: I am pretty sure a significant proportion of people don't think that, at least not without reservations. And a large section of the public wouldn't even know what you mean by "liberal democracy" as opposed to just "democracy", so you can not really meaningfully say that they think they live in a liberal democracy. They would understand your question to mean "can you vote?", which they would, correctly so based on their understanding of the question, answer with "yes". I think it might be helpful to draw an analogy with religion: Many religious people have a very warped understanding of reality and in particular of how to understand reality. They simply lack the competence to understand the failures in their reasoning. They think they do understand the world in terms of their preferred fictional story, but they don't realize it's all fictional. So, based on their rather confused understanding of the world, they then demand that slavery should be upheld, or that gay people should be oppressed, or that women must not be allowed to control their own bodies, or whatever the case may be, because they think that those are the right things to do. But then, there is a not insignificant group of people who overcome their religion, who come to understand how reality actually works and how it can actually be understood. And with that understanding usually comes a rejection of their previous political stance, because they now understand the actual consequences of their former ideas. These are not people who are actually fundamentally OK with the damage they were doing before, they simply were lacking an understanding of how their actions were damaging, because based on their previous fictional world view, they were doing the right thing to prevent bad things from happening. You have to consider that people might just be incompetent at this democracy thing, rather than that they all have an understanding that reflects all the things that they could know if they were paying attention to the right sources that you might be paying attention to.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago

> Thankfully, liberal democracies are free enough so audiences in the west are informed of the consequences of surveilance (humiliating border controls, incarceration, police brutality), and they are largely OK with it. I don't see evidence to the contrary. So, you think that the general public understands what it is like to live in a police state, how corruption wastes resources that they otherwise could benefit from, what negative consequences they themselves can expect further down the road? If you ask me, most people are not even really aware of the things you list. Most people believe those things are a small necessary evil that you need to ensure safety, or individual mistakes that happen, and and it's not something they would ever experience themselves, because they believe that the state is fair and friendly and would only ever do such things to people who really did bad things, which they themselves obviously aren't, as any officer would immediately recognize. People have no fucking clue how power structures work, how their data is actually being used, how bad corruption can get, how inhuman governments can act against them. They have no fucking clue right up to the moment where they are the victim and they are totally surprised what is happening to them. > Authoritarianism has gradations and is not incompatible with democracy. Democracy may protect from extreme authoritarianism but it doesn't guarantee liberalism. How isn't that the exact same "but structurally sound buildings have burned down!" response as before? Nobody is claiming that democracy guarantees liberalism, rather this is all about the fact that you can not have democracy without liberalism. Democracies are perfectly capable of ending liberalism, and have done so many times, but with it they necessarily end democracy. Either people can make free decision in their own best interest, or they have to follow what the authority dictates. A democracy in which authoritarianism rules is only a democracy in name, but not in function, just as the GDR was. If the dictator tells you who you have to vote for, that is not a democracy, no matter how much you get to vote.

buboard 7y ago
> Most people believe those things are a small necessary evil that you need to ensure safety, I believe the same too, but not that people are clueless. People are quite aware (imperfectly , but still pretty well) of what can go wrong, and they 've decided that losing some liberties is a small price to pay. It's been too many years of revelations and media campaigns. I think at this point we just have to admit that most people don't mind, not that they don't know. That's what leads many people to say that true freedom is not compatible with democracy. > A democracy in which authoritarianism rules is only a democracy in name, but not in function, just as the GDR was. Right, but where do you draw the line. Did the germans in 1933 think they have a democracy? Do Turks or Russians today think they have a democracy? It's easy to tell post-facto, or from the outside, not so easy when it's happening in real time. Do the UK or US think they have a liberal democracy ? absolutely. Is that 100% true? less clear
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > People are quite aware (imperfectly , but still pretty well) of what can go wrong, and they 've decided that losing some liberties is a small price to pay. In other words: They do not understand that they are losing all liberties? > It's been too many years of revelations and media campaigns. I think at this point we just have to admit that most people don't mind, not that they don't know. I very much disagree. Do you have an idea what media people consume? What absolute bullshit they are being fed? Do you really think that people on that basis have an accurate understanding of where all of this will lead? > Right, but where do you draw the line. You don't, there is no need to, it's not a binary matter. You might for pragmatic reasons in order to have terms to use for effective communication, but there is no actual line between "dictatorship" and "democracy", between "libertarianism" and "totalitarianism", it's a scale with many steps in between the two extremes. The point is that just because something might be considered a democracy under some pragmatic definition, doesn't mean it's therefore equivalent to everything else that you might label a democracy. > Did the germans in 1933 think they have a democracy? Do Turks or Russians today think they have a democracy? I think that's somewhat the wrong question to ask, in that it assumes "the Germans", "the Turks", or "the Russians" to be homogeneous groups. There most definitely were and are lots of people in all of those societies who would not consider their political system a functional democracy. > It's easy to tell post-facto, or from the outside, not so easy when it's happening in real time. Well, but is that actually true? If you understand power structures somewhat, it's not really that hard to see, is it? It seems to me this is much more a matter of competence than of your location in time or space. While it may be hard to get the full picture of what is going on, it's not really that hard to see whether you are free to say whatever you want, to inform yourself about whatever you want, to vote securely, i.e., whether the structural prerequesites for a democracy are there. It's just that a lot of people are not competent at recognizing what authoritarianism looks like and are more than willing to accept any authoritarian apologetics they are presented with. > Do the UK or US think they have a liberal democracy ? absolutely. Is that 100% true? less clear But do they? As above: I am pretty sure a significant proportion of people don't think that, at least not without reservations. And a large section of the public wouldn't even know what you mean by "liberal democracy" as opposed to just "democracy", so you can not really meaningfully say that they think they live in a liberal democracy. They would understand your question to mean "can you vote?", which they would, correctly so based on their understanding of the question, answer with "yes". I think it might be helpful to draw an analogy with religion: Many religious people have a very warped understanding of reality and in particular of how to understand reality. They simply lack the competence to understand the failures in their reasoning. They think they do understand the world in terms of their preferred fictional story, but they don't realize it's all fictional. So, based on their rather confused understanding of the world, they then demand that slavery should be upheld, or that gay people should be oppressed, or that women must not be allowed to control their own bodies, or whatever the case may be, because they think that those are the right things to do. But then, there is a not insignificant group of people who overcome their religion, who come to understand how reality actually works and how it can actually be understood. And with that understanding usually comes a rejection of their previous political stance, because they now understand the actual consequences of their former ideas. These are not people who are actually fundamentally OK with the damage they were doing before, they simply were lacking an understanding of how their actions were damaging, because based on their previous fictional world view, they were doing the right thing to prevent bad things from happening. You have to consider that people might just be incompetent at this democracy thing, rather than that they all have an understanding that reflects all the things that they could know if they were paying attention to the right sources that you might be paying attention to.