6 ms·

What is "a credible existential threat to civilization" to you? The recent riots seem to be more than adequately handled through existing law enforcement proced

by edbob 6y ago

What is "a credible existential threat to civilization" to you? The recent riots seem to be more than adequately handled through existing law enforcement procedures. Obviously the police can't prevent every crime, but in this case investigation and prosecution seems to be enough to remove bad actors. We know what the consequences of free speech are, and even if the downsides are amplified 1000x by its enemies, the downsides are still manageable by existing institutions. What are the known consequences of not having free speech? Is there a large country where this hasn't resulted in the death and/or oppression of millions? Even Mao's China had the Cultural Revolution, which was more destructive than the BLM and Capitol riots combined. Clearly not having free speech prevents neither civil unrest nor insurrection against the lawful authorities. If you're looking for a dream solution where the world becomes great, than free speech will never get you there. You will probably be attracted to the unproven promises of some ideology or another due to lack of alternatives. If you're looking for a comparison of real-world consequences where one imperfect solution outperforms another, then so far free speech has yet to produce a Holocaust, a Holodomor, or a Three Years of Great Famine. The lack of free speech has.

lisper 6y ago
> What is "a credible existential threat to civilization" to you? For example: a delusional or demagogic leader who promulgates lies about the outcome of an election in order to fire up a mob and incite them to attempt to violently take over the seat of government of a country with nuclear weapons. Not that such a thing would ever actually happen. I guess I'm just a worrier.
- edbob 6y ago
  What's the worst-case scenario if they had succeeded? That they take some people hostage and have a stand-off until the FBI takes them down? There was no path to them attaining any actual power. Their actions were violent and bad, but had no actual effect on anybody outside of D.C. That is not what I call an "existential threat". Again, you have to compare the downsides of free speech vs the downsides of censorship. If you only look at the cons of free speech, then of course you will hate it. But if you compare one impotent riot to the tens of millions dead as a result of suppression, then free speech seems much more valuable.
  - baggy_trough 6y ago
    I would think assassinations.
    - edbob 6y ago
      That would be very bad if it happened, although existing institutions proved sufficient to prevent this. Still, we've had many assassinations in our history, often at the presidential level. None of them were "existential threats". They were all handled by existing institutions and did not require throwing out our core values.
  - lisper 6y ago
    > There was no path to them attaining any actual power. They currently have actual power. Their leader is currently the president of the United States. For the next 48 hours he could nuke Tehran if he wanted to. And what actually happened is far from the worst-case scenario. Imagine a comparable mob, but well organized, and armed with assault rifles. That was (and remains) a real possibility.
    - edbob 6y ago
      You seem determined to focus only on the worst possible hypothetical downsides and not consider anything else. Of course in this case free speech will prove to be an evil that must be eliminated. You win.
  - alwayseasy 6y ago
    The worst-case scenario is the end of democracy in the USA in the next 15 years. If one side stays convinced the elections were fraudulent and Trump is a victim , it will cause a permanent shift in how Americans see their own democratic elections. Historically, since democracy has existed, that vacuum is always filled by an authoritarian leader.
    - antibuddy 6y ago
      However, what if the election really was fraudulent? I mean the video in Georgia after the election observer were sent home, were pretty incriminating. Also seeing how BLM got backing and did way more damage, makes this all look pretty one-sided. It's only okay if they do it.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  > fire up a mob and incite them to attempt to violently take over the seat of government of a country with nuclear weapons You know the buttons/switches/etc to launch missiles (nuclear or not) are not at the Speaker's podium in the House, right? In fact, "taking over the seat of government" here was literally just that.. a physical seat. The US government applies authority in people via roles not via seating position. Were they a bunch of assholes? Yes and they should be prosecuted as such. Was it a "violent take over"? Not a chance.
  - jariel 6y ago
    "Was it a "violent take over"? Not a chance" Sure it was. This is how a 'coup' works - the objective is not to 'take control of the country' by force, but of the political system. If that violent mob was successful in 'stopping the count' - then it very seriously threatens the legitimacy of Biden being president. Why do you think that Congress reconvened right after the violence and very quickly pushed through the vote? And didn't wait a few days? If the vote confirmation doesn't take place, someone takes the case to SCOTUS wherein they might rule the process was not complete and 'now you have two Presidents' - and very ugly ambiguous situation that could spiral out of control very quickly. The fact that SCOTUS could have ruled 'incomplete process' may embolden millions of 'hard Constitutionalists' to one side. This stuff happens all over the world, all the time. These things are fragile. It was a nice little lesson in how actually fragile 'even the USA is' and that this is serious stuff.
    - caseysoftware 6y ago
      > 'now you have two Presidents' If you're going to imagine Constitutional crises, you should understand the rules we're working within. Check out the first section of the 20th Amendment and please report back how there could be two Presidents. Narrator: Turns out the system isn't that fragile. It continues on regardless because there are contingencies built in and improved upon over the years.
      - jariel 6y ago
        Obviously there wouldn't be '2 Presidents' by any reasonable application of a set of very clear rules. But those rules are not clear. One camp would believe, that Biden won a fair election, as stated by the DOJ, Homeland Security and the State Officals (it's their perogative), and that the preformative process of validating the results in Congress wasn't entirely necessary. The other claim would claim with 'the election was disputed' and that the failure to confirm the results in Congress was a 'fully legal act' that abnegates the possibility of Biden from taking office. AKA '2 Presidents' by virtue of you you interpret the outcomes of those events. The 20th Amendment does not help us clarify that situation. In these contentious scenarios, the credibility of institutions is stretched and populism starts to take hold. It would be major crisis. This is why institutions started to rally around 'one camp' as to facilitate a proper transfer of power. Since much of this debacle was based off of misinformation, it speaks directly to issues with 'truth' and 'freedom of expression'. I'm not sure if there is an obvious answer on the table, but there are definitely problems.
dralley 6y ago
>What is "a credible existential threat to civilization" to you? The recent riots seem to be more than adequately handled through existing law enforcement procedures. The crowd (who had previously been chanting "hang Mike Pence") came within about 30 seconds of being face to face with Vice President Pence and some large fraction of Congress (source [0]). They came very close to being overrun before the building was evacuated. We can't know what would have happened. But we know what might have happened. And it very nearly could have happened. I'm not ready to call that "more than adequately handled". [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-rioters-capitol-attack/2021/01/15/ab62e434-567c-11eb-a08b-f1381ef3d207_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-rioters-capito...
- edbob 6y ago
  For context, I don't expect any government to be able to prevent violence and conflict. The best we can hope for is to keep conflict to a manageable level. We've had numerous assassinations in this country in the past, and it held together. The threat of a possible assassination of a right-wing figure absolutely does not rise to the level of "existential threat". If you don't want to call it "adequately handled", fine, I'm not going to argue those semantic distinctions especially as it's not necessary for us to have the same perspectives here. I'm just saying that society is still intact, and would still be intact even if Mike Pence had been attacked. Other than the personal tragedy to Pence and his family, the worst outcome of an assassination would be people struggling to reconcile their ecstatic glee that Pence had keen killed with their furious rage that right-wingers attacked someone. If anything, division and conflict within the Republican Party only seems to strengthen their opposition. These events lead to less power held by the right, not more. Republicans shooting themselves in the foot is not an "existential threat to civilization".
- yissp 6y ago
  Law enforcement has been failing to take the threat of right-wing extremism seriously for a long time. I think that's what we should be focused on addressing instead of clamping down on speech. The situation at the capitol should never have been allowed to escalate to the point that it did.

by edbob 6y ago

lisper 6y ago

> What is "a credible existential threat to civilization" to you? For example: a delusional or demagogic leader who promulgates lies about the outcome of an election in order to fire up a mob and incite them to attempt to violently take over the seat of government of a country with nuclear weapons. Not that such a thing would ever actually happen. I guess I'm just a worrier.

edbob 6y ago
What's the worst-case scenario if they had succeeded? That they take some people hostage and have a stand-off until the FBI takes them down? There was no path to them attaining any actual power. Their actions were violent and bad, but had no actual effect on anybody outside of D.C. That is not what I call an "existential threat". Again, you have to compare the downsides of free speech vs the downsides of censorship. If you only look at the cons of free speech, then of course you will hate it. But if you compare one impotent riot to the tens of millions dead as a result of suppression, then free speech seems much more valuable.
- baggy_trough 6y ago
  I would think assassinations.
  - edbob 6y ago
    That would be very bad if it happened, although existing institutions proved sufficient to prevent this. Still, we've had many assassinations in our history, often at the presidential level. None of them were "existential threats". They were all handled by existing institutions and did not require throwing out our core values.
- lisper 6y ago
  > There was no path to them attaining any actual power. They currently have actual power. Their leader is currently the president of the United States. For the next 48 hours he could nuke Tehran if he wanted to. And what actually happened is far from the worst-case scenario. Imagine a comparable mob, but well organized, and armed with assault rifles. That was (and remains) a real possibility.
  - edbob 6y ago
    You seem determined to focus only on the worst possible hypothetical downsides and not consider anything else. Of course in this case free speech will prove to be an evil that must be eliminated. You win.
- alwayseasy 6y ago
  The worst-case scenario is the end of democracy in the USA in the next 15 years. If one side stays convinced the elections were fraudulent and Trump is a victim , it will cause a permanent shift in how Americans see their own democratic elections. Historically, since democracy has existed, that vacuum is always filled by an authoritarian leader.
  - antibuddy 6y ago
    However, what if the election really was fraudulent? I mean the video in Georgia after the election observer were sent home, were pretty incriminating. Also seeing how BLM got backing and did way more damage, makes this all look pretty one-sided. It's only okay if they do it.
caseysoftware 6y ago
> fire up a mob and incite them to attempt to violently take over the seat of government of a country with nuclear weapons You know the buttons/switches/etc to launch missiles (nuclear or not) are not at the Speaker's podium in the House, right? In fact, "taking over the seat of government" here was literally just that.. a physical seat. The US government applies authority in people via roles not via seating position. Were they a bunch of assholes? Yes and they should be prosecuted as such. Was it a "violent take over"? Not a chance.
- jariel 6y ago
  "Was it a "violent take over"? Not a chance" Sure it was. This is how a 'coup' works - the objective is not to 'take control of the country' by force, but of the political system. If that violent mob was successful in 'stopping the count' - then it very seriously threatens the legitimacy of Biden being president. Why do you think that Congress reconvened right after the violence and very quickly pushed through the vote? And didn't wait a few days? If the vote confirmation doesn't take place, someone takes the case to SCOTUS wherein they might rule the process was not complete and 'now you have two Presidents' - and very ugly ambiguous situation that could spiral out of control very quickly. The fact that SCOTUS could have ruled 'incomplete process' may embolden millions of 'hard Constitutionalists' to one side. This stuff happens all over the world, all the time. These things are fragile. It was a nice little lesson in how actually fragile 'even the USA is' and that this is serious stuff.
  - caseysoftware 6y ago
    > 'now you have two Presidents' If you're going to imagine Constitutional crises, you should understand the rules we're working within. Check out the first section of the 20th Amendment and please report back how there could be two Presidents. Narrator: Turns out the system isn't that fragile. It continues on regardless because there are contingencies built in and improved upon over the years.
    - jariel 6y ago
      Obviously there wouldn't be '2 Presidents' by any reasonable application of a set of very clear rules. But those rules are not clear. One camp would believe, that Biden won a fair election, as stated by the DOJ, Homeland Security and the State Officals (it's their perogative), and that the preformative process of validating the results in Congress wasn't entirely necessary. The other claim would claim with 'the election was disputed' and that the failure to confirm the results in Congress was a 'fully legal act' that abnegates the possibility of Biden from taking office. AKA '2 Presidents' by virtue of you you interpret the outcomes of those events. The 20th Amendment does not help us clarify that situation. In these contentious scenarios, the credibility of institutions is stretched and populism starts to take hold. It would be major crisis. This is why institutions started to rally around 'one camp' as to facilitate a proper transfer of power. Since much of this debacle was based off of misinformation, it speaks directly to issues with 'truth' and 'freedom of expression'. I'm not sure if there is an obvious answer on the table, but there are definitely problems.

dralley 6y ago

>What is "a credible existential threat to civilization" to you? The recent riots seem to be more than adequately handled through existing law enforcement procedures. The crowd (who had previously been chanting "hang Mike Pence") came within about 30 seconds of being face to face with Vice President Pence and some large fraction of Congress (source [0]). They came very close to being overrun before the building was evacuated. We can't know what would have happened. But we know what might have happened. And it very nearly could have happened. I'm not ready to call that "more than adequately handled". [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-rioters-capitol-attack/2021/01/15/ab62e434-567c-11eb-a08b-f1381ef3d207_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/pence-rioters-capito...

edbob 6y ago
For context, I don't expect any government to be able to prevent violence and conflict. The best we can hope for is to keep conflict to a manageable level. We've had numerous assassinations in this country in the past, and it held together. The threat of a possible assassination of a right-wing figure absolutely does not rise to the level of "existential threat". If you don't want to call it "adequately handled", fine, I'm not going to argue those semantic distinctions especially as it's not necessary for us to have the same perspectives here. I'm just saying that society is still intact, and would still be intact even if Mike Pence had been attacked. Other than the personal tragedy to Pence and his family, the worst outcome of an assassination would be people struggling to reconcile their ecstatic glee that Pence had keen killed with their furious rage that right-wingers attacked someone. If anything, division and conflict within the Republican Party only seems to strengthen their opposition. These events lead to less power held by the right, not more. Republicans shooting themselves in the foot is not an "existential threat to civilization".
yissp 6y ago
Law enforcement has been failing to take the threat of right-wing extremism seriously for a long time. I think that's what we should be focused on addressing instead of clamping down on speech. The situation at the capitol should never have been allowed to escalate to the point that it did.