4 ms·
> But defending the opposite kind—lies spread by the powerful—is helping them silence dissent. But that just moves the problem to the question of "who is power
by luckylion 6y ago
> But defending the opposite kind—lies spread by the powerful—is helping them silence dissent.
But that just moves the problem to the question of "who is powerful?", doesn't it? Everybody feels that their side isn't in power because their goals and ideals haven't been completely achieved, so obviously they are the powerless who are speaking truth to power, and therefore the other side are the powerful who are spreading lies to silence dissent.
That doesn't help. I think there's a good chance for anybody that they are wrong in their perception of who is in power, their perception of what "the powerful" want, their political convictions and theories of life, so any kind of distinction of what speech to suppress and what to allow is pretty much a coin flip with regards to this "allow & support speaking truth to power".
- joshuamorton 6y agoWho is more powerful: The President of the United States, or me? While it's indeed possible that there are ambiguous cases, that doesn't invalidate the idea in general. Unless you legitimately believe that it is always impossible to determine when there is a power imbalance in a relationship. But we make that decision just fine in many other situations, so I don't know why speech would be different.
- luckylion 6y ago> While it's indeed possible that there are ambiguous cases, that doesn't invalidate the idea in general. Compared to you vs the US president, I'd say all cases are ambiguous. Are we just measuring the president and then say "that's what the people in power believe", or are we determining everyone's power level and opinions and then weigh both to find out what part of those in power believe X? It's impossible to do accurately, and you won't get a binary picture even if you managed to do it.