4 ms·

It is highly distressing the degree to which one of the political parties has decided "having any opinion contrary to our official one is bad for 'democracy'".

It is highly distressing the degree to which one of the political parties has decided "having any opinion contrary to our official one is bad for 'democracy'". A government which mandates what people are allowed to say and think is not a democracy of any kind, of course.

version_five 4y ago
It's funny / scary to me how we were all so worried about this coming from the Right. In 2016, Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro, Erdogan, etc etc were all (probably rightly) a big source of concern that democratic norms were being abandoned and they would steamroll over institutions that were not prepared for people who didn't play by the rules. Even before that, we have stuff like Watchmen and V for Vendetta from Alan Moore that predicts the slip into authoritarianism, but depicts it coming from the right. And then either in response or just because they were not in the spotlight, the Left came in and completely abandoned norms and decided that they could just do whatever, from never accepting Trump's win (I don't like Trump, but the point is that shouldn't be required to accept someone's winning), to all the covid stuff, to misinformation, to what's going on now with the courts (I support abortion access, not protesting the supreme court). You watch your back but you're best to watch your front -GZA
- jmoak3 4y ago
  I think everyone is becoming more Authoritarian. The right will never stop because the survival of their traditions depend on it. The left will never stop because they know what's best for us. The central idea of Liberalism is that societies grow best when their citizens have enough calm space to figure out their own lives. The internet constantly shows us lives we find heretical, and without conscious effort to calm ourselves down and let go, that calm is gone. I guess we just mob up and go to war now. EDIT: In a sense, the internet has crashed hundreds of millions of people into the same village. We're still working out how to live with one another. In practice it's people screaming for leaders to make sweeping rules to fight against the corrupting influence of whatever force they don't like in their mega-village, taking turns in an escalating battle.
  - sieabahlpark 4y ago
    - perrylaj 4y ago
      You realize that during the time of the Civil war the Republican party was the more progressive party, right? The shift to more conservative ideals started in the early 1900s, shifting further with the Southern Strategy, and then most recently, has shifted even further. The Republican party of today shares little but name with the progressive GOP of the mid 1800s. Trying to claim it is the "side that ended slavery" is a fairly silly statement, as that side no longer exists in the party at all.
    - mint2 4y ago
      Sorry but can you explain why people cite the modern day political organization strongly preferred by current neo-nazis and white nationalists as being the same party as the one that ~175 years ended slavery like evolution and change does not exist? It’s bizarre honesty.
    - upsidesinclude 4y ago
      You should read the comment again and see that it is making that very same statement, but about both parties. It is no more a slander of the right than the left
  - ece 4y ago
    I'm wondering what some signs might be that we are working out how to live with one another, like less sub tweeting or something.
    - jmoak3 4y ago
      I think we're still in the process of realizing we have new neighbors, judging by the rise in culture wars. We've got to peak soon, right? Until then, I could see it getting worse - people from one state marching in another to protest their ways of life for example.
- mint2 4y ago
  Please don’t comment like that. HN guidelines: “ Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. “ You and I live in different realities democrats didn’t storm congress that was trump supporters when they refused to accept his loss. There is nothing wrong with protesting the Supreme Court decisions, that’s called freedom of speech. Aka something valued in non-authoritian value systems. Covid misinformation like ivermectin? Or that it’s just flu? That’s not the left spreading those. Hacker news isn’t a good place for political debates but the views you expressed have serious flaws/skews and do not reflect a factual/neutral observer. Take your rebuttal reply if you will but I’m not going to continue after this because hacker news shouldn’t be for political wars like your post is designed to bring on. In fact the HN guidelines ask people not to post like your comment.
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
  - version_five 4y ago
    This is a super ironic comment, but I guess has the value that even something that seems clear like forum guidelines are subject to wide (and ideological) interpretation.
    - mint2 4y ago
      No, it’s not ironic, it’s why the guideline is exists. If someone posts something that they know many others are going to strongly disagree with politically it’s against HN guidelines. I can point that out. I also can’t let what I view as false and slanted viewpoints go unchallenged. That’s exactly why the guideline exists, that type of top comment can lead to a back and forth after the first poster opens Pandora’s box. Don’t open the box.
Beltalowda 4y ago
> A government which mandates what people are allowed to say and think is not a democracy of any kind, of course. Good thing Obama specifically said that he doesn't want that in his speech: "No Democratic government can or should do what China, for example, is doing, simply telling people what they can and cannot say or publish while trying to control what others say about their country abroad. And I don’t have a lot of confidence that any single individual or organization, private or public, should be charged or do a good job at determining who gets to hear what."
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  That is the trouble with NewSpeak, isn't it? That quote is a perfect lead in for what they are saying: we need to be able to regulate so that "any single individual [read: Musk] or organization [read: Twitter]..." isn't "determining who gets to hear what". Certainly not just that platform, but all forums. Notice something peculiar about the way it's phrased? Who gets to hear what. Of all the ways to define or reflect on free speech, that is the way they view this predicament. Think on that for a second. Let's all be realistic and own this moment.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    We've always had the major media organisations editorializing and deciding what's "front page news" and what isn't. Social media platforms do the same: they already decide what's on the front-page on in your timeline and what's not. I don't want to be rude, but have you even read the article? Because you're not engaging with the actual content at all and I found it considerably more nuanced and thoughtful that it's being given credit for.
    - upsidesinclude 4y ago
      Nuance? You are in the weeds. It is so far from nuanced that it's laughable: "With that power comes accountability, and in democracies like ours, at least, the need for some democratic oversight." "...these big platforms need to be subject to some level of public oversight and regulation." "...we have a long history of regulating new technologies in the name of public safety..." "A regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place... regulation has to be part of the answer." "...regulation... will make democracy stronger"
timcavel 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

version_five 4y ago

It's funny / scary to me how we were all so worried about this coming from the Right. In 2016, Trump, Orban, Bolsonaro, Erdogan, etc etc were all (probably rightly) a big source of concern that democratic norms were being abandoned and they would steamroll over institutions that were not prepared for people who didn't play by the rules. Even before that, we have stuff like Watchmen and V for Vendetta from Alan Moore that predicts the slip into authoritarianism, but depicts it coming from the right. And then either in response or just because they were not in the spotlight, the Left came in and completely abandoned norms and decided that they could just do whatever, from never accepting Trump's win (I don't like Trump, but the point is that shouldn't be required to accept someone's winning), to all the covid stuff, to misinformation, to what's going on now with the courts (I support abortion access, not protesting the supreme court). You watch your back but you're best to watch your front -GZA

jmoak3 4y ago
I think everyone is becoming more Authoritarian. The right will never stop because the survival of their traditions depend on it. The left will never stop because they know what's best for us. The central idea of Liberalism is that societies grow best when their citizens have enough calm space to figure out their own lives. The internet constantly shows us lives we find heretical, and without conscious effort to calm ourselves down and let go, that calm is gone. I guess we just mob up and go to war now. EDIT: In a sense, the internet has crashed hundreds of millions of people into the same village. We're still working out how to live with one another. In practice it's people screaming for leaders to make sweeping rules to fight against the corrupting influence of whatever force they don't like in their mega-village, taking turns in an escalating battle.
- sieabahlpark 4y ago
  - perrylaj 4y ago
    You realize that during the time of the Civil war the Republican party was the more progressive party, right? The shift to more conservative ideals started in the early 1900s, shifting further with the Southern Strategy, and then most recently, has shifted even further. The Republican party of today shares little but name with the progressive GOP of the mid 1800s. Trying to claim it is the "side that ended slavery" is a fairly silly statement, as that side no longer exists in the party at all.
  - mint2 4y ago
    Sorry but can you explain why people cite the modern day political organization strongly preferred by current neo-nazis and white nationalists as being the same party as the one that ~175 years ended slavery like evolution and change does not exist? It’s bizarre honesty.
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    You should read the comment again and see that it is making that very same statement, but about both parties. It is no more a slander of the right than the left
- ece 4y ago
  I'm wondering what some signs might be that we are working out how to live with one another, like less sub tweeting or something.
  - jmoak3 4y ago
    I think we're still in the process of realizing we have new neighbors, judging by the rise in culture wars. We've got to peak soon, right? Until then, I could see it getting worse - people from one state marching in another to protest their ways of life for example.
mint2 4y ago
Please don’t comment like that. HN guidelines: “ Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle. It tramples curiosity. “ You and I live in different realities democrats didn’t storm congress that was trump supporters when they refused to accept his loss. There is nothing wrong with protesting the Supreme Court decisions, that’s called freedom of speech. Aka something valued in non-authoritian value systems. Covid misinformation like ivermectin? Or that it’s just flu? That’s not the left spreading those. Hacker news isn’t a good place for political debates but the views you expressed have serious flaws/skews and do not reflect a factual/neutral observer. Take your rebuttal reply if you will but I’m not going to continue after this because hacker news shouldn’t be for political wars like your post is designed to bring on. In fact the HN guidelines ask people not to post like your comment.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
- version_five 4y ago
  This is a super ironic comment, but I guess has the value that even something that seems clear like forum guidelines are subject to wide (and ideological) interpretation.
  - mint2 4y ago
    No, it’s not ironic, it’s why the guideline is exists. If someone posts something that they know many others are going to strongly disagree with politically it’s against HN guidelines. I can point that out. I also can’t let what I view as false and slanted viewpoints go unchallenged. That’s exactly why the guideline exists, that type of top comment can lead to a back and forth after the first poster opens Pandora’s box. Don’t open the box.

Beltalowda 4y ago

> A government which mandates what people are allowed to say and think is not a democracy of any kind, of course. Good thing Obama specifically said that he doesn't want that in his speech: "No Democratic government can or should do what China, for example, is doing, simply telling people what they can and cannot say or publish while trying to control what others say about their country abroad. And I don’t have a lot of confidence that any single individual or organization, private or public, should be charged or do a good job at determining who gets to hear what."

upsidesinclude 4y ago
That is the trouble with NewSpeak, isn't it? That quote is a perfect lead in for what they are saying: we need to be able to regulate so that "any single individual [read: Musk] or organization [read: Twitter]..." isn't "determining who gets to hear what". Certainly not just that platform, but all forums. Notice something peculiar about the way it's phrased? Who gets to hear what. Of all the ways to define or reflect on free speech, that is the way they view this predicament. Think on that for a second. Let's all be realistic and own this moment.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  We've always had the major media organisations editorializing and deciding what's "front page news" and what isn't. Social media platforms do the same: they already decide what's on the front-page on in your timeline and what's not. I don't want to be rude, but have you even read the article? Because you're not engaging with the actual content at all and I found it considerably more nuanced and thoughtful that it's being given credit for.
  - upsidesinclude 4y ago
    Nuance? You are in the weeds. It is so far from nuanced that it's laughable: "With that power comes accountability, and in democracies like ours, at least, the need for some democratic oversight." "...these big platforms need to be subject to some level of public oversight and regulation." "...we have a long history of regulating new technologies in the name of public safety..." "A regulatory structure, a smart one, needs to be in place... regulation has to be part of the answer." "...regulation... will make democracy stronger"

timcavel 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]