8 ms·

The point he is making is that the Democratic party elite have decided after the election of Donald Trump and brexit that we have too much democracy. Part of t

by JPKab 7y ago

The point he is making is that the Democratic party elite have decided after the election of Donald Trump and brexit that we have too much democracy. Part of that pattern is a sudden sense of responsibility on the part of big tech companies to only allow information that is in line with authoritative sources AKA experts. He then goes on to point out how often the experts on these things that the media references are completely wrong either willfully or structurally. He cites numerous examples in just the last few years of this including the WMD fiasco where a bunch of journalists and all the experts were just certain that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Or the Russiagate narrative which was a very specific set of allegations which were all proven to be false. He hates Trump, but he's not a partisan and therefore was capable of seeing wishful thinking and groupthink in action. The most horrifying aspect of this article was the fact that lawyers are now writing op eds in the Atlantic advocating for Chinese style censorship in the United States. I never my wildest dreams thought I would see this happen in my country. The fact that it's coming from people on the left is a gut punch. I grew up in a Christian fundamentalist environment where I was all constantly told what words I was allowed to use and what I couldn't. Saying lucky was discouraged strongly. We were blessed instead. This control of speech had a purpose which was to control how you think. It's awful and it's evil. And now the party I've always voted for has decided that that's the way to go. Yesterday Adam Schiff the Democratic congressman who is in charge of the house intelligence committee yet again sent a notice to the big tech companies telling them they needed to censor more of this. I don't know what to do or say at this point. I just know that if the cost of freedom of speech is that sometimes the masses do dumb things I'd rather live with that than be told what I can and can't say.

mindslight 7y ago
> The point he is making is that the Democratic party elite have decided after the election of Donald Trump ... that we have too much democracy. At its core, is this not fundamentally true? Not that this makes for a justification, but it is an explanation. AFAICT, every single President of the past four decades would have handled COVID-19 better. They still would have been full of warm air, but at the very least they would have deferred to advisers. This one has been actively undermining any reasoned approach, including intelligent debate about how some of the current measures go too far, by drowning it out with cheap bullheaded ignorance. Leaders drawn from an ordained political class get us status quo sustained corruption, but also create predictability when responding to a shared crisis. From a systematic perspective, whereby we all rely on having things administered adequately, there does appear to have been too much democracy.
- JPKab 7y ago
  Trump's a moron, but it isn't clear to me that HIS TEAM dragged their feet on anything. I'm a big fan of Bill Maher, and Dan Crenshaw's interview on the show had some relevant points, including the fact that the House dragged their feet on providing funding requested by the administration. They did, and there's a record of it. I checked myself when I was watching, because I didn't believe it. They did. This is the issue: Highly intelligent people disagree on things all the time, because human cognitive capacity is so limited in it's ability to assimilate massive quantities of information. We all have filters on all the time to keep from draining our daily limit of cognitive energy, blinding us to most of reality in a way we aren't aware of. I'm a lifelong Democratic voter, but Trump, for example, has handled certain issues much better than people I voted for in the past would have. Holding China accountable, and the WHO as well, are small examples. (Being an asshole who doesn't care how you are perceived can have advantages) Bigger examples are trade policies. He basically has a classic Bernie Sanders attitude to American manufacturing (unfortunately it comes with Trump himself......). The point is that elitist thinking, that the population can't be trusted, is the hallmark of every authoritarian regime in history. It certainly is the justification. You can't have it both ways.
  - mindslight 7y ago
    I agree there's certainly enough blame to go around for this ongoing disaster. I've personally been indifferent about Trump up until 2020 - he's responsible for feet dragging throughout February and the continued lack of national leadership. Even as a libertarian I can respect that half-competent authority would be useful if only to reassure people to keep them from attacking each other. Being anti-authoritarian, I certainly was not making my point as a justification. But our society is based heavily on authoritarian structures, and viewed objectively by its function, it has failed by electing not just a self-interested looter but rather someone who is actively self-destructive. If the political outsider had been kept out, the position would have been filled by someone who worked with the system to accomplish goals, and with a nonpartisan health crisis this would have been objectively beneficial.

by JPKab 7y ago

mindslight 7y ago

> The point he is making is that the Democratic party elite have decided after the election of Donald Trump ... that we have too much democracy. At its core, is this not fundamentally true? Not that this makes for a justification, but it is an explanation. AFAICT, every single President of the past four decades would have handled COVID-19 better. They still would have been full of warm air, but at the very least they would have deferred to advisers. This one has been actively undermining any reasoned approach, including intelligent debate about how some of the current measures go too far, by drowning it out with cheap bullheaded ignorance. Leaders drawn from an ordained political class get us status quo sustained corruption, but also create predictability when responding to a shared crisis. From a systematic perspective, whereby we all rely on having things administered adequately, there does appear to have been too much democracy.

JPKab 7y ago
Trump's a moron, but it isn't clear to me that HIS TEAM dragged their feet on anything. I'm a big fan of Bill Maher, and Dan Crenshaw's interview on the show had some relevant points, including the fact that the House dragged their feet on providing funding requested by the administration. They did, and there's a record of it. I checked myself when I was watching, because I didn't believe it. They did. This is the issue: Highly intelligent people disagree on things all the time, because human cognitive capacity is so limited in it's ability to assimilate massive quantities of information. We all have filters on all the time to keep from draining our daily limit of cognitive energy, blinding us to most of reality in a way we aren't aware of. I'm a lifelong Democratic voter, but Trump, for example, has handled certain issues much better than people I voted for in the past would have. Holding China accountable, and the WHO as well, are small examples. (Being an asshole who doesn't care how you are perceived can have advantages) Bigger examples are trade policies. He basically has a classic Bernie Sanders attitude to American manufacturing (unfortunately it comes with Trump himself......). The point is that elitist thinking, that the population can't be trusted, is the hallmark of every authoritarian regime in history. It certainly is the justification. You can't have it both ways.
- mindslight 7y ago
  I agree there's certainly enough blame to go around for this ongoing disaster. I've personally been indifferent about Trump up until 2020 - he's responsible for feet dragging throughout February and the continued lack of national leadership. Even as a libertarian I can respect that half-competent authority would be useful if only to reassure people to keep them from attacking each other. Being anti-authoritarian, I certainly was not making my point as a justification. But our society is based heavily on authoritarian structures, and viewed objectively by its function, it has failed by electing not just a self-interested looter but rather someone who is actively self-destructive. If the political outsider had been kept out, the position would have been filled by someone who worked with the system to accomplish goals, and with a nonpartisan health crisis this would have been objectively beneficial.