4 ms·
> You say that as though people aren't susceptible to influence form malicious actors spouting propaganda People are sheep and require benevolent shepherds. A
by Supermancho 7y ago
> You say that as though people aren't susceptible to influence form malicious actors spouting propaganda
People are sheep and require benevolent shepherds. A viewpoint that has successfully been instituted throughout time. Who shall this aristocracy be? Those with the most potential liability and deepest pockets? Sure. I present you believe in Plutocracy, even if you profess not to, by your own circumspect explanations.
Unsurprisingly, this has been par for the US since always (more or less).
- ineedasername 7y agoStop acting like there's only one extreme or the other. It's a simplistic world view that ignores that most things exist in shades of grey. There can be reasonable places in between extremes, and defaulting to an extreme just shows that you lack imagination or willingness to work through hard problems.
- Supermancho 7y ago> Stop acting like there's only one extreme or the other. I have accurately described your views, which is how most of the US votes. Hand waving in denial, is not uncommon. Good luck with that. > It's a simplistic world view that ignores that most things exist in shades of grey That's why it takes MULTIPLE steps to get to that point, which I went through. Take another look at my post. "Do people need to be protected from other people's speech?" Yes, to some degree there needs to be watchers. "who gets to decide what is 'acceptable'" The watchers are those with the most resources to watch the people. > defaulting to an extreme just shows that you lack imagination I present that you lack comprehension of your own viewpoint. My "failure" is that I have not given you a solution that you find acceptable, which meets your expectations.