4 ms·

> As someone who is sympathetic to both cultures, this has been painful to watch. Now that it's time for the powers that be to punish the red tribe, the blue tr

> As someone who is sympathetic to both cultures, this has been painful to watch. Now that it's time for the powers that be to punish the red tribe, the blue tribe is all too happy to join in the authoritarianism - eg feigning outrage at the gallows (ignoring the guillotine symbolism of the past year), assertions that speech must be policed, and calls to take right-wing terrorism "seriously" You're equivocating around the elephant (no pun intended) in the room. Members of authority on the red team have been actively working to overturn the election since they were voted out and those attempts finally culminated in a deadly attack on the capitol. These big tech companies are policing speech, but they are doing so on their own platforms based on a philosophical opposition to the message of sedition that 50% of the red team is pushing. These companies are saying "enough is enough, if you spread election fraud misinformation you are not welcome here", that's perfectly reasonable, and forcing these companies to rebroadcast this message is the only example of authoritarianism present in this debate. > (meaning attack red tribe protests with the same zeal as blue tribe protests) This is false. Any leader on the blue team will say they would prefer all citizens be treated well rather than all citizens be abused. I'd be interested if you had any examples demonstrating otherwise. > the tech angle is how such nonsensical propaganda took over the red tribe so strongly There's a little bit of tech to it, but this was happening on cable news and talk radio long before it was happening on the internet, the only difference is that twitter is massively popular whereas Fox News is not. If Fox News had 180 million prime time viewers we'd all just say "well, they could just watch MSNBC is if they wanted!"

mindslight 6y ago
> they are doing so on their own platforms based on a philosophical opposition to the message of sedition that 50% of the red team is pushing Agreed. I worded it how I did on purpose - to not take issue with the platforms choosing to censor, but rather with the assertion that all platforms have some duty to censor. >> (meaning attack red tribe protests with the same zeal as blue tribe protests) > This is false. Any leader on the blue team will say they would prefer all citizens be treated well rather than all citizens be abused When specifically asked, yes, but that's not how such calls are received by policy makers. I've definitely seen videos of rioters complaining for being "attacked like Black people" with blue tribe commenters partaking in schadenfreude. But yes my example was a bit obtuse, trying to capture the general attitude of condemning people being angry at the government in the red tribe way. > this was happening on cable news and talk radio long before it was happening on the internet I agree that this is part of a longer trend. But there is also a qualitative difference now that pent up anger has turned into mass action, especially over something so clearly farcical. If talk radio had incited something like this in the 90s, there would have been a clear target to blame. Even the gaslighting of politicians' sedition as not-sedition is an artifact of our postmodern media environment.

mindslight 6y ago

> they are doing so on their own platforms based on a philosophical opposition to the message of sedition that 50% of the red team is pushing Agreed. I worded it how I did on purpose - to not take issue with the platforms choosing to censor, but rather with the assertion that all platforms have some duty to censor. >> (meaning attack red tribe protests with the same zeal as blue tribe protests) > This is false. Any leader on the blue team will say they would prefer all citizens be treated well rather than all citizens be abused When specifically asked, yes, but that's not how such calls are received by policy makers. I've definitely seen videos of rioters complaining for being "attacked like Black people" with blue tribe commenters partaking in schadenfreude. But yes my example was a bit obtuse, trying to capture the general attitude of condemning people being angry at the government in the red tribe way. > this was happening on cable news and talk radio long before it was happening on the internet I agree that this is part of a longer trend. But there is also a qualitative difference now that pent up anger has turned into mass action, especially over something so clearly farcical. If talk radio had incited something like this in the 90s, there would have been a clear target to blame. Even the gaslighting of politicians' sedition as not-sedition is an artifact of our postmodern media environment.