3 ms·

what I contest is the idea that there is comparable misinformation on both sides I don't see that we need to even consider the question of parity. Saying that

what I contest is the idea that there is comparable misinformation on both sides I don't see that we need to even consider the question of parity. Saying that one side or another is worse, and therefore requires special attention, is wrong: it's false that only the worst offender should be policed. All sides should be subject to the same rules, whether they're doing it a lot or just a little. My personal philosophy is that for all sides, the remedy is to encourage more information to shine light on the falsehoods, rather than trying to gag any ideas.

jolux 6y ago
>All sides should be subject to the same rules, whether they're doing it a lot or just a little. Sure, absolutely. >Saying that one side or another is worse, and therefore requires special attention, is wrong: it's false that only the worst offender should be policed. This is not my position, I just disagree that the "left-wing" media outlets that rayiner identified are materially engaged in misinformation in the same way that the outlets identified in these letters are. But I also don't really want to litigate this question, as it's a recipe for a flame war. >My personal philosophy is that for all sides, the remedy is to encourage more information to shine light on the falsehoods, rather than trying to gag any ideas. In general I agree, but we're in a state of exception right now. Since 1/6, certain ideas have now proved themselves to be dangerous to (small-d) democratic rule. I don't think this is an easy question to answer, or I would be giving the easy answer, instead of asking the question: what actions are legitimate in this instance to preserve democracy, and do they include regulating the speech of institutions which reject majority rule? Karl Popper has an answer here, but I'm a pretty strict constitutionalist and a strong believer in freedom of speech, so I can't unreservedly suggest the government should intervene.
- rayiner 6y ago
  What exactly are those ideas?
  - jolux 6y ago
    That a legitimate election was manipulated by powerful people to install the loser, and that the people who voted for the other guy need to stand up for what’s right and defend the “real” America.

jolux 6y ago

>All sides should be subject to the same rules, whether they're doing it a lot or just a little. Sure, absolutely. >Saying that one side or another is worse, and therefore requires special attention, is wrong: it's false that only the worst offender should be policed. This is not my position, I just disagree that the "left-wing" media outlets that rayiner identified are materially engaged in misinformation in the same way that the outlets identified in these letters are. But I also don't really want to litigate this question, as it's a recipe for a flame war. >My personal philosophy is that for all sides, the remedy is to encourage more information to shine light on the falsehoods, rather than trying to gag any ideas. In general I agree, but we're in a state of exception right now. Since 1/6, certain ideas have now proved themselves to be dangerous to (small-d) democratic rule. I don't think this is an easy question to answer, or I would be giving the easy answer, instead of asking the question: what actions are legitimate in this instance to preserve democracy, and do they include regulating the speech of institutions which reject majority rule? Karl Popper has an answer here, but I'm a pretty strict constitutionalist and a strong believer in freedom of speech, so I can't unreservedly suggest the government should intervene.

rayiner 6y ago
What exactly are those ideas?
- jolux 6y ago
  That a legitimate election was manipulated by powerful people to install the loser, and that the people who voted for the other guy need to stand up for what’s right and defend the “real” America.