4 ms·

our constitution specifically protects the ability to discuss its own overthrow (although of course we also have by far the largest military and intelligence op

our constitution specifically protects the ability to discuss its own overthrow (although of course we also have by far the largest military and intelligence operation in the world to suppress any real threats, which last week very much was not). the framers realized that this was a key and fundamental aspect of free speech, and exactly the method by which we can foster discussions of change rather than via violence. that is, your terror and mistrust are misplaced. let people talk, even disgustingly. let the world change (progress) in response. that's much better than bottled-up anger that explodes unpredictably and fractally.

Grimm1 6y ago
It does I agree, but when talk changes to action (in the recent case violence) what do we do then? We've seen what happens when a minority fringe extremist group is able to take control of a country, on many occasions now. I in good conscience can't see a world where if we failed to stop it earlier I would be able to sleep with the consequences because we let them talk it out in protection of freedom of speech purism. Would it be right to let that happen and then spend years and lives having to re capture our government? Obviously these are all hypothetical scenarios and questions, but if the mob a few days ago had any aim and organization they would have clearly seized our government and they're being whipped into a frenzy by things like Parler to try it again on the 17th so I'm told.
- clairity 6y ago
  the federal government isn’t a building or a group of congresspeople. it’s the power we collectively cast as a populace. there was no chance those few hundred people would overthrow our government that way. the real threat is the power concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. that’s how we go from democracy to oligarchy to dictatorship. that’s the threat model. stop fearing the disorderly and the disenfranchised like the powerful want you to (effectuated via the media gaze and political rhetoric), but rather focus on how to disperse power and wealth more widely (as the framers intended) to keep that primary threat at bay.
  - Grimm1 6y ago
    I fear the installment of an autocrat. Whether through slow corruption from the inside in politics, through concentration of wealth or something such as the event from last week. The difference, in the event of last week, was the reality of that happening could have been hastened immensely. I don't like our current system, but the slow decay gives us the ability to work towards the aims which you have stated on more preferable terms.
    - clairity 6y ago
      no, that's exactly the misguided fear that deflects concern from where it should be placed. last week was nothing. it was a small and relatively powerless group of people lashing out at an increasingly captive system. that we can no longer mostly elect non-millionaire presidents and congresspeople is the real threat.
      - pas 6y ago
        It was still very much a thing. A symptom of many other even more problematic things. The sitting president directly used its office, power, platform to try to stop a democratic process, and launch/command an attack against a different branch of the government (the legislature). Even if that attack was purely symbolic. (... though calling it symbolic while people died is not entirely right.) A radicalized subgroup of the fanaticized Trump cult used force to thwart a democratic process they deemed fake/undemocratic. And they managed to successfully pause that process for considerable amount of time. Especially the stark contrast between the interaction of police and Trump cultists compared to police and BLM protesters points to an other serious problem. ... That powerless group of people includes the sitting president, a bunch of senators and representatives, and they had a very very real chance of winning the election. That same powerless group, at least a part of it that choose to do so, managed to basically stroll into the Capitol, loot it, and go away unharmed. (They got tear gassed eventually.) And this group included an elected state representative, various police officers, veterans, lawyers, and other not exactly powerless members of society. This is about status, which is about perception. Conservative ideology is about social order, the status quo. This 'powerless group' wants to maintain their power, despite the results of the democratic process - which is designed to measure exactly that peacefully. This is very much a thing. It's a serious ongoing thing. It has been ongoing forever though. And it's going to go on for ... well, probably forever too, but that only means other will have to expend energy to actively push that status quo toward a more fair equilibrium (or set-point).

Grimm1 6y ago

It does I agree, but when talk changes to action (in the recent case violence) what do we do then? We've seen what happens when a minority fringe extremist group is able to take control of a country, on many occasions now. I in good conscience can't see a world where if we failed to stop it earlier I would be able to sleep with the consequences because we let them talk it out in protection of freedom of speech purism. Would it be right to let that happen and then spend years and lives having to re capture our government? Obviously these are all hypothetical scenarios and questions, but if the mob a few days ago had any aim and organization they would have clearly seized our government and they're being whipped into a frenzy by things like Parler to try it again on the 17th so I'm told.

clairity 6y ago
the federal government isn’t a building or a group of congresspeople. it’s the power we collectively cast as a populace. there was no chance those few hundred people would overthrow our government that way. the real threat is the power concentrating in fewer and fewer hands. that’s how we go from democracy to oligarchy to dictatorship. that’s the threat model. stop fearing the disorderly and the disenfranchised like the powerful want you to (effectuated via the media gaze and political rhetoric), but rather focus on how to disperse power and wealth more widely (as the framers intended) to keep that primary threat at bay.
- Grimm1 6y ago
  I fear the installment of an autocrat. Whether through slow corruption from the inside in politics, through concentration of wealth or something such as the event from last week. The difference, in the event of last week, was the reality of that happening could have been hastened immensely. I don't like our current system, but the slow decay gives us the ability to work towards the aims which you have stated on more preferable terms.
  - clairity 6y ago
    no, that's exactly the misguided fear that deflects concern from where it should be placed. last week was nothing. it was a small and relatively powerless group of people lashing out at an increasingly captive system. that we can no longer mostly elect non-millionaire presidents and congresspeople is the real threat.
    - pas 6y ago
      It was still very much a thing. A symptom of many other even more problematic things. The sitting president directly used its office, power, platform to try to stop a democratic process, and launch/command an attack against a different branch of the government (the legislature). Even if that attack was purely symbolic. (... though calling it symbolic while people died is not entirely right.) A radicalized subgroup of the fanaticized Trump cult used force to thwart a democratic process they deemed fake/undemocratic. And they managed to successfully pause that process for considerable amount of time. Especially the stark contrast between the interaction of police and Trump cultists compared to police and BLM protesters points to an other serious problem. ... That powerless group of people includes the sitting president, a bunch of senators and representatives, and they had a very very real chance of winning the election. That same powerless group, at least a part of it that choose to do so, managed to basically stroll into the Capitol, loot it, and go away unharmed. (They got tear gassed eventually.) And this group included an elected state representative, various police officers, veterans, lawyers, and other not exactly powerless members of society. This is about status, which is about perception. Conservative ideology is about social order, the status quo. This 'powerless group' wants to maintain their power, despite the results of the democratic process - which is designed to measure exactly that peacefully. This is very much a thing. It's a serious ongoing thing. It has been ongoing forever though. And it's going to go on for ... well, probably forever too, but that only means other will have to expend energy to actively push that status quo toward a more fair equilibrium (or set-point).