3 ms·

I've come to the same conclusions with the added step that I believe we should focus our efforts on creating platforms and protocols to protect anonymity, encry

I've come to the same conclusions with the added step that I believe we should focus our efforts on creating platforms and protocols to protect anonymity, encrypted communication, alternate payment mechanisms, and freedom of speech. As a conservative I've seen all of these things attacked in order to control what is allowed to be said and who is allowed to be compensated.

clairity 5y ago
> "As a conservative..." you had a good comment going until you tribalized yourself (with a false dichotomy, to boot). the pull of the tribe will always subvert independent thinking. that's not to say we can exist devoid of identities, but that we should always be cognizant of the bias they introduce, and actively reduce the attack surface of that bias by not adopting identifying ideologies needlessly. you can for example be amenable to many "conservative" ideas without considering yourself a conservative, and especially without joining an ideological party (like the republicans). the goals you mention are not ideological, so why bring ideology into the conversation?
- gnarbarian 5y ago
  Because the brunt of this phenomena in the US has been directed at conservatives ever since 2016. It happens literally every day now, someone I follow is disappeared from a platform.
  - clairity 5y ago
    yah, that's exactly the bias talking. 2016 isn't special. the rhetorical heat has been rising for decades because more and more people are realizing that moneyed interests are corrupting our shared prosperity, and getting a fair shake is becoming less and less realizable for more and more people. heated rhetoric ("censorship") in turn tries to squash, or at least shout down, dissent, but that's mostly misdirected at each other rather than toward the moneyed and powerful, who have distracted us and subverted our common rules and norms over the last 70 years. it's not special to the times or a particular ideology (and especially not a particular ex-president and his fans).
  - seph-reed 5y ago
    Something similar happened with terrorism when the US started bombing. People joined because they were losing friends and seeked both revenge and solidarity. I still don't think it's a great idea to find too much solidarity within the two party system, no matter how sweet the revenge could be. That's why I don't consider myself a modern liberal.
  - pyronik19 5y ago
    Look how quickly the comments section turned on you because "as a conservative", where as you say, the brunt of all censorship is focused. Really goes to show how effective it is that even in a threat discussing the topic, the prevailing "othering" affect is demonstrated.
    - gnarbarian 5y ago
      I fully expected it. These people have no idea what it's like from the other side and it's specifically why I mentioned it.

clairity 5y ago

> "As a conservative..." you had a good comment going until you tribalized yourself (with a false dichotomy, to boot). the pull of the tribe will always subvert independent thinking. that's not to say we can exist devoid of identities, but that we should always be cognizant of the bias they introduce, and actively reduce the attack surface of that bias by not adopting identifying ideologies needlessly. you can for example be amenable to many "conservative" ideas without considering yourself a conservative, and especially without joining an ideological party (like the republicans). the goals you mention are not ideological, so why bring ideology into the conversation?

gnarbarian 5y ago
Because the brunt of this phenomena in the US has been directed at conservatives ever since 2016. It happens literally every day now, someone I follow is disappeared from a platform.
- clairity 5y ago
  yah, that's exactly the bias talking. 2016 isn't special. the rhetorical heat has been rising for decades because more and more people are realizing that moneyed interests are corrupting our shared prosperity, and getting a fair shake is becoming less and less realizable for more and more people. heated rhetoric ("censorship") in turn tries to squash, or at least shout down, dissent, but that's mostly misdirected at each other rather than toward the moneyed and powerful, who have distracted us and subverted our common rules and norms over the last 70 years. it's not special to the times or a particular ideology (and especially not a particular ex-president and his fans).
- seph-reed 5y ago
  Something similar happened with terrorism when the US started bombing. People joined because they were losing friends and seeked both revenge and solidarity. I still don't think it's a great idea to find too much solidarity within the two party system, no matter how sweet the revenge could be. That's why I don't consider myself a modern liberal.
- pyronik19 5y ago
  Look how quickly the comments section turned on you because "as a conservative", where as you say, the brunt of all censorship is focused. Really goes to show how effective it is that even in a threat discussing the topic, the prevailing "othering" affect is demonstrated.
  - gnarbarian 5y ago
    I fully expected it. These people have no idea what it's like from the other side and it's specifically why I mentioned it.