3 ms·

The eradication of dissenting opinion is the terrifying thing. Nearly as terrifying as the otherwise intelligent people seeming to cheer for the authoritariani

The eradication of dissenting opinion is the terrifying thing. Nearly as terrifying as the otherwise intelligent people seeming to cheer for the authoritarianism.

danaris 6y ago
There's a meaningful difference between "dissenting opinion" on what tax policy should be, and "dissenting opinion" on whether we should be accepting the results of a free and fair election. Eradication of dissension on the first is concerning (yes, even for tax policies that have been empirically shown to be utter bullshit). Eradication of dissension on the second is more in the nature of A Very Good Idea If We Want Democracy To Continue.
- smitty1e 6y ago
  Seems a difference without a difference to me. In the old days, people could be Flat Earthers if they wanted to. The notion of external opinions being crammed down through threat of deplatforming and blacklisting is scary stuff. I urge reconsideration.
  - danaris 6y ago
    Guess what? People can still be Flat Earthers if they want to be. They're absolutely wrong, and stupid, but they're welcome to be so. What they're not welcome to do is inflame the public against the legitimately elected government with easily-disproven lies about the legitimacy of that election. Inflame with differing political opinion? Sure. Inflame with genuine possible electoral tampering? Fine. Believe easily-disproven lies in the privacy of their own heads? Go for it. But once they're trying to spread lies like that—and especially when they use those lies to incite a literal violent insurrection against our government—they've crossed a line.
- dbsights 6y ago
  You're begging the question by calling it a "free and fair election". The dissent is whether that is actually the case. And if it is not, then the eradication of that dissent is terrifying.
  - danaris 6y ago
    The question has been raised in over 60 different legal challenges. Every single one has failed utterly to show any evidence that it was not. At this point, claiming there is any doubt means you are asserting an unprecedentedly massive conspiracy. It doesn't make you fair-minded, nonpartisan, or somehow above the fray. It makes you either deliberately attempting to sow unfounded doubt, or so ludicrously and willfully blind that you might as well be complicit in the attempt to overthrow the government.
    - dbsights 6y ago
      "Agree with me or you're guilty too". Those challenges were defeated on procedural grounds, not because of a lack of evidence. The investigations of the 2016 election were started for less.
    - slowhand09 6y ago
      This initial point you make in this statement... applies exactly to the impeachment that already happed. And to the Kananaugh hearings... Orange Man Bad is emotional, not factual.. Most proponents of this are unable to pinpoint much if anything "Bad" done by Orange Man.

The eradication of dissenting opinion is the terrifying thing. Nearly as terrifying as the otherwise intelligent people seeming to cheer for the authoritarianism.

danaris 6y ago

There's a meaningful difference between "dissenting opinion" on what tax policy should be, and "dissenting opinion" on whether we should be accepting the results of a free and fair election. Eradication of dissension on the first is concerning (yes, even for tax policies that have been empirically shown to be utter bullshit). Eradication of dissension on the second is more in the nature of A Very Good Idea If We Want Democracy To Continue.

smitty1e 6y ago
Seems a difference without a difference to me. In the old days, people could be Flat Earthers if they wanted to. The notion of external opinions being crammed down through threat of deplatforming and blacklisting is scary stuff. I urge reconsideration.
- danaris 6y ago
  Guess what? People can still be Flat Earthers if they want to be. They're absolutely wrong, and stupid, but they're welcome to be so. What they're not welcome to do is inflame the public against the legitimately elected government with easily-disproven lies about the legitimacy of that election. Inflame with differing political opinion? Sure. Inflame with genuine possible electoral tampering? Fine. Believe easily-disproven lies in the privacy of their own heads? Go for it. But once they're trying to spread lies like that—and especially when they use those lies to incite a literal violent insurrection against our government—they've crossed a line.
dbsights 6y ago
You're begging the question by calling it a "free and fair election". The dissent is whether that is actually the case. And if it is not, then the eradication of that dissent is terrifying.
- danaris 6y ago
  The question has been raised in over 60 different legal challenges. Every single one has failed utterly to show any evidence that it was not. At this point, claiming there is any doubt means you are asserting an unprecedentedly massive conspiracy. It doesn't make you fair-minded, nonpartisan, or somehow above the fray. It makes you either deliberately attempting to sow unfounded doubt, or so ludicrously and willfully blind that you might as well be complicit in the attempt to overthrow the government.
  - dbsights 6y ago
    "Agree with me or you're guilty too". Those challenges were defeated on procedural grounds, not because of a lack of evidence. The investigations of the 2016 election were started for less.
  - slowhand09 6y ago
    This initial point you make in this statement... applies exactly to the impeachment that already happed. And to the Kananaugh hearings... Orange Man Bad is emotional, not factual.. Most proponents of this are unable to pinpoint much if anything "Bad" done by Orange Man.