4 ms·

To anyone reading these threads who is disconcerted by all the apologists, rationalizations, and blindness: Hello, this is what modern totalitarianism looks lik

To anyone reading these threads who is disconcerted by all the apologists, rationalizations, and blindness: Hello, this is what modern totalitarianism looks like. The whole point is to shake the foundations of your principles, and make you doubt yourself. Corporations that control 90% of the internet, and therefore public discourse, are hiding behind the technicality of being private entities, and therefore can enforce whatever rules they want. This can't really be disputed, but it's obviously unethical, and obviously used in bad faith. They are no longer just companies, but quasi-states. Some people saw this coming in the early 2010's, but no one really cared. We saw people's indifference to being tracked by these companies and governments with Snowden's leaks. We saw the transformation of Google, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter from supposedly "open platforms" to editorialized publishers, and arbiters of truth. This is exactly what we all signed up for, without caring about the consequences. This is only going to get worse. Some people have called for a decentralized internet, where there is no overlord, but truly open platforms. That's the modern counter-culture, or modern activism. Decentralization won't solve all our problems, but it would make it easier to work on them in good faith. Things I'd like to encourage, from a pragmatic view: - Stop using the corporate internet. - We must hear people out, even if they're wrong. - We need to remove the addictive and exploitative systems currently ingrained in social media design. - Move from a perspective of "us versus them" into a mindset of compassion for others who have valid grievances that are not being addressed.

rendall 6y ago
> "To anyone reading these threads who is disconcerted by all the apologists, rationalizations, and blindness:" That's me! I'm disconcerted by this! What words of comforting wisdom do you have for me? > "...this is what modern totalitarianism looks like" sad trombone
- prohobo 6y ago
  Haha, apologies... At least it's only soft totalitarianism, or inverted. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism I think it's encouraging that there's a way to categorize what's happening, because it suggests an alternative route, or at least a way to engage with it without feeling crazy. These are strange times, and a lot of smart people seem to be voting in favor of their own defeat. A tough question would be to ask why, and I think it's a combination of factors: an atmosphere of insecurity and wanting a strong figure to end it, naive idealism, wish fulfillment, cultural alignment, etc. Smart people can find ways to rationalize bad things. There's no sense in getting caught in the quagmire of trying to convince someone on the internet that we're headed down the wrong path. Instead, we can actually create an alternative that's just plain better. So, maybe it's not all so bad - but more of a call to action.
  - rendall 6y ago
    Well, I didn't disagree with you. I was just hoping you had a solution. I don't have one. For me I keep hoping people will have an epiphany: "Could my contempt for half of the country be at least part of the problem?" It's always "other group" who is instigating Bad, and "our group" who is fighting for Good. To many it's a literal bare-knuckled fight against "evil", not realizing or not caring that their own tactics and outlook are themselves destabilizing. The media is just feeding into it. I don't see any easy way out.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
Eupolemos 6y ago
> We must hear people out, even if they're wrong. So, I'm going to pull out good old Harry Frankfurt here and his "On Bullshit". If the one you debate is debating in good faith, you are right. If the one you debate is bullshitting, you are wrong. "Bullshitting" is not caring about true or false, but simply arguing for an effect. If someone argues in good faith but is "wrong", hear them out. In particular, it is easy to dismiss someone who proposes horrible solutions to problems. Just realize, the problem may be very real, even if their proposed solution is horrifying. On top of that, people will propose straight up mad solutions, if they feel nobody cares about their problems. Just recognize that we are talking about two very different things here; bullshitting and being "wrong". And they need to be handled differently.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- thorough 6y ago
  So this "good faith" requirement seems like a huge gaping loophole, just a wonderfully easy way to dismiss and even censor a ton of people you merely disagree with. Whether or not they are arguing in good faith is so subjective and therefore the question of who you should hear out becomes the usual popularity contest: if you are sufficiently unpopular, it will be easy to convince people to dismiss someone as arguing in bad faith if they already dislike that person. One example might convince you that this "good faith" rule is too restrictive if you agree with me on one premise, that ~90% of politicians regularly argue in bad faith. Yet most of us who agree with this do not as a rule claim that we will never hear them out.

rendall 6y ago

> "To anyone reading these threads who is disconcerted by all the apologists, rationalizations, and blindness:" That's me! I'm disconcerted by this! What words of comforting wisdom do you have for me? > "...this is what modern totalitarianism looks like" sad trombone

prohobo 6y ago
Haha, apologies... At least it's only soft totalitarianism, or inverted. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism I think it's encouraging that there's a way to categorize what's happening, because it suggests an alternative route, or at least a way to engage with it without feeling crazy. These are strange times, and a lot of smart people seem to be voting in favor of their own defeat. A tough question would be to ask why, and I think it's a combination of factors: an atmosphere of insecurity and wanting a strong figure to end it, naive idealism, wish fulfillment, cultural alignment, etc. Smart people can find ways to rationalize bad things. There's no sense in getting caught in the quagmire of trying to convince someone on the internet that we're headed down the wrong path. Instead, we can actually create an alternative that's just plain better. So, maybe it's not all so bad - but more of a call to action.
- rendall 6y ago
  Well, I didn't disagree with you. I was just hoping you had a solution. I don't have one. For me I keep hoping people will have an epiphany: "Could my contempt for half of the country be at least part of the problem?" It's always "other group" who is instigating Bad, and "our group" who is fighting for Good. To many it's a literal bare-knuckled fight against "evil", not realizing or not caring that their own tactics and outlook are themselves destabilizing. The media is just feeding into it. I don't see any easy way out.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

Eupolemos 6y ago

> We must hear people out, even if they're wrong. So, I'm going to pull out good old Harry Frankfurt here and his "On Bullshit". If the one you debate is debating in good faith, you are right. If the one you debate is bullshitting, you are wrong. "Bullshitting" is not caring about true or false, but simply arguing for an effect. If someone argues in good faith but is "wrong", hear them out. In particular, it is easy to dismiss someone who proposes horrible solutions to problems. Just realize, the problem may be very real, even if their proposed solution is horrifying. On top of that, people will propose straight up mad solutions, if they feel nobody cares about their problems. Just recognize that we are talking about two very different things here; bullshitting and being "wrong". And they need to be handled differently.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thorough 6y ago
So this "good faith" requirement seems like a huge gaping loophole, just a wonderfully easy way to dismiss and even censor a ton of people you merely disagree with. Whether or not they are arguing in good faith is so subjective and therefore the question of who you should hear out becomes the usual popularity contest: if you are sufficiently unpopular, it will be easy to convince people to dismiss someone as arguing in bad faith if they already dislike that person. One example might convince you that this "good faith" rule is too restrictive if you agree with me on one premise, that ~90% of politicians regularly argue in bad faith. Yet most of us who agree with this do not as a rule claim that we will never hear them out.