3 ms·
But the thing with these sweeping generalizations of "them" as being violent and damaging is - who gets to define what is violent and damaging? Glenn Greenwald
by RspecMAuthortah 6y ago
But the thing with these sweeping generalizations of "them" as being violent and damaging is - who gets to define what is violent and damaging?
Glenn Greenwald, who I respect a lot and was instrumental in breaking the mass surveillance in US by intelligence agencies recently spoke about these very issue:
"
My insistence that we look at the other side of the ledger — the costs and dangers not only from such attacks but also the “solutions” implemented in the name of the stopping them — did not come from indifference towards those deaths or a naive views of those responsible for them. It was instead driven by my simultaneous recognition of the dangers from rights-eroding, authoritarian reactions imposed by the state, particularly in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event.
"
and then this:
"
It has long been clear that, in the post-Trump era, media outlets looking to keep viewers hooked, and government officials looking to increase their power, will do everything possible to center and inflate the threat posed by right-wing factions. I’ve said this more times than I can count over the last year at least.
Like all inflated threats, this one has a kernel of truth. As is true of every faction, there are right-wing activists filled with rage and who are willing to do violence. Some of them are dangerous (just as some Muslims in the post-9/11 era, and some Antifa nihilists, were and are genuinely violent and dangerous). But as was true of the Cold War and the War on Terror and so many other crisis-spurred reactions, the other side of the ledger — the draconian state powers clearly being planned and urged and prepared in the name of stopping them — carry its own extremely formidable dangers.
Refusing to consider those dangers for fear of standing accused of downplaying the threat is the most common tactic authoritarian advocates of state power use. Less than twenty-four hours after the Capitol breach, one sees this tactic being wielded with great flamboyance and potency, and it is sure to continue long after January 20.
"
- caconym_ 6y agoI’m not talking about government suppression of speech. I’m talking about society itself rejecting a certain kind of speech, by the actions of private citizens and organizations, and generally having an awareness of the fact that two sides of an issue are not always equally right. We have to do our best. The fact that it’s a hard problem to solve without going too far doesn’t give us license to throw up our hands, cast off from reality, and inhabit a dreamland where there is no difference between a truth and a falsehood.
- lanstin 6y agoYeah shame and shun anyone that won’t take responsibility for their actions.
- Tokkemon 6y agoAfter the Capitol attack, it is clearly no longer inflated. It has boiled over.
- ssalazar 6y ago> who gets to define what is violent and damaging? "They" are literally the ones attacking and threatening the seat of American government. This isn't a thought experiment at this point.