7 ms·

while many struggles with the mental gymnastic, for me it has always been clear-cut. Government might be bad, and if they did bad, can we criticize it? Did any

while many struggles with the mental gymnastic, for me it has always been clear-cut. Government might be bad, and if they did bad, can we criticize it? Did any harm come to Joseph Gordon-Levitt or Adam Driver for portraying real life events depicting US government in lesser light? Can the same be said to Fan Bing Bing if she is to portray Li Wenliang in a movie? Or Viktor Bychkov playing Navalny in some sort of biopic produced by Russian production house?

cylon13 4y ago
I want more freedoms than just the ability to complain about not having freedom though.
kn0where 4y ago
America is more Brave New World than 1984; people can protest the government, but if that protest rarely overcomes the inertia of the status quo, does it even matter?
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Yes of course it matters. Is it sufficient? Probably not. But it’s a substantial improvement over not being able to e.g. protest the government. Anyway, our government isn’t designed to be steered by protest but by voting, which despite all its flaws does shift inertia.
  - krageon 4y ago
    > voting You cannot meaningfully vote in the US, you have two options that have similar fascist views of the rest of the world and are unlikely to change anything. That is a false choice, meant to lull the chooser into a false sense of agency.
    - ethanbond 4y ago
      Yep it’s an imperfect system. It’s dramatically better than a lot of others that have existed through history (including today) though. It is simply wildly untrue to imply that the two major parties don’t hold opposing views on at least a few important topics or that voting doesn’t help determine which party holds the power to realize their worldview. There’s a lot of overlap and a lot of ineffectiveness but this does not make them the same.
      - krageon 4y ago
        I thought this was incredibly obvious, but when you are not inside the US it becomes a lot more clear that it's foreign policy or stance on human rights doesn't change. It doesn't matter who you have in charge. What US news reaches outside of the borders frankly also doesn't convince me it's the same clusterfuck year after year. It wasn't always like this - it's gotten a lot worse in the past twenty years that I've paid any attention to it.
  - angryasian 4y ago
    > isn’t designed to be steered by protest but by voting Even voting within states are completely rigged with gerrymandering and popular vote means nothing in national elections.
    - yadaeno 4y ago
      This is a disingenuous pattern of argument. You point out a known problem and then throw the baby out with the bath water. In this case, its clear voting does have some effect because seats are constantly changing parties, and parties fiercely compete for votes. Other similar examples of this argument: "Everyone knows taxes go to corrupt corporations, they are completely useless get rid of them" "Everyone knows masks dont block 100% of airflow, theyre completely useless!"
      - WaxProlix 4y ago
        > seats are constantly changing parties, and parties fiercely compete for votes Possibly because those seats are worth money. I don't know that people competing for them means voting 'works' in any definitive fashion. Princeton recently released a study (this one[1], I think?) that basically says as much: voting does very little. 1 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
      - Fatnino 4y ago
        What seats are changing party? I live in California where my vote counts the least. Since I turned 18 every single election has sent a Democrat to Washington for both senate seats and my representative and president (though California doesn't have final say on that last one). Currently, of those 4 seats, 3 are in their high 70s or even 80s and the 4th was appointed by the governor. I'm in my 30s. My interests are either entirely not, or very very poorly represented in Washington. Tell me again how my never missing an election has made a difference?
        4y ago
Kye 4y ago
How would you know if someone less famous got disappeared? How would you evaluate the claim from people who say they saw it happen?
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  > How would you know if someone less famous got disappeared? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
- asdajksah2123 4y ago
  Almost everyone living in the US has some sort of record. They went to school, had friends, teachers, family, etc. It's unlikely you wouldn't know someone has disappeared, especially if they were important enough that the government decided to illegally disappear them.
- puppymaster 4y ago
  By reading and applying critical thinking in evaluating said material. Unless you are parroting the infamous FSB playbook of 'question everything it will muddies the truth'.
anonymousDan 4y ago
Tell that to Julien Assange (ducks).
BrainVirus 4y ago
>Government might be bad, and if they did bad, can we criticize it? Assange rots in prison, Alex Jones gets found guilty of defamation by default judgment, FBI raids James O'Keefe and leaks his phone data to NYT (which he is suing), and to top it all we have a soviet-style shitshow trial directed by politicians in January 6th Committee. Now, I will see some awesome mental gymnastics of people explaining how none of these things have any effect on freedom of speech.
- oarsinsync 4y ago
  > Alex Jones gets found guilty of defamation by default judgment Given that Alex Jones has in the last 24 hours been found to be lying under oath repeatedly during his trial, since his lawyers accidentally gave a full digital copy of his phone to the prosecuting attorneys (which they were supposed to have done already during discovery, but did not), this may not be the most effective example.
  - BrainVirus 4y ago
    It's a perfect example of how people are brainwashed to accept degradation of their basic speech and due process rights because powers that be found an example (a scapegoat, really) that's not sympathetic to the public. I recall the debates around banning Jones from YouTube. It was "sold" as an unprecedented step to combat unprecedented violation of basic decency. And here were are a few years later, when simply mentioning some wrongthink words automatically demonetizes your videos, splatters them with warnings and even cuts live streams from air. People are banned from YouTube left and right (pun intended). It's the new normal and brave technologists who posed as defenders of "real" free speech are mostly rationalizing and cheering it on. BTW, would you care to explain how something that happened in the last 24 hours is relevant to the issuance of default judgment that occurred in November last year?
    - altruios 4y ago
      the default judgment happened after 6 months of 'fuck around and find out' from Alex 'turn the frogs gay' Jones... he putted around with blatant disregard for the trial and cries crocodile tears when he's found lying under oath during the damages hearing... Alex 'you may be my neighbor but i'll eat your ass' jones is not some Bastian of freedom - he's a snake oil salesman profiting off other's pain and misery. selling 'real' pills his family makes. He had due judgement - he had 6 months to do literally anything (He didn't raise a finger in this regard). You don't 'not go to trial' by ignoring it... that's not how this works... not how any of this works. BESIDES ALL THAT: I agree with you: platforms are censoring people... that's in reaction to malicious (not just false - but intentionally crafted and designed to cause harm) information propagating through our social networks - mind viruses just like bulimia and anorexia that are shared socially - only far more potent: things like QAnnon. information is spread not by how true it is - but by how sticky. if malicious actors infect a network - besides censorship - the alternative is violence - either by inaction allowing the malicious mind virus to flourish - or by taking action against it. We are in a brave new world - and we don't even know the tools we need to protect ourselves as a species from the existential threat of memetic viruses... Maybe we just all need to stop sneezing our thoughts out onto the internet letting them congeal into this amalgamations of ideas that seem to have a life of their own. the life status of biological viruses is suspect. I suspect viruses made of thoughts and memetic imagery can potentially reach agent-hood.

cylon13 4y ago

I want more freedoms than just the ability to complain about not having freedom though.

kn0where 4y ago

America is more Brave New World than 1984; people can protest the government, but if that protest rarely overcomes the inertia of the status quo, does it even matter?

ethanbond 4y ago
Yes of course it matters. Is it sufficient? Probably not. But it’s a substantial improvement over not being able to e.g. protest the government. Anyway, our government isn’t designed to be steered by protest but by voting, which despite all its flaws does shift inertia.
- krageon 4y ago
  > voting You cannot meaningfully vote in the US, you have two options that have similar fascist views of the rest of the world and are unlikely to change anything. That is a false choice, meant to lull the chooser into a false sense of agency.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Yep it’s an imperfect system. It’s dramatically better than a lot of others that have existed through history (including today) though. It is simply wildly untrue to imply that the two major parties don’t hold opposing views on at least a few important topics or that voting doesn’t help determine which party holds the power to realize their worldview. There’s a lot of overlap and a lot of ineffectiveness but this does not make them the same.
    - krageon 4y ago
      I thought this was incredibly obvious, but when you are not inside the US it becomes a lot more clear that it's foreign policy or stance on human rights doesn't change. It doesn't matter who you have in charge. What US news reaches outside of the borders frankly also doesn't convince me it's the same clusterfuck year after year. It wasn't always like this - it's gotten a lot worse in the past twenty years that I've paid any attention to it.
- angryasian 4y ago
  > isn’t designed to be steered by protest but by voting Even voting within states are completely rigged with gerrymandering and popular vote means nothing in national elections.
  - yadaeno 4y ago
    This is a disingenuous pattern of argument. You point out a known problem and then throw the baby out with the bath water. In this case, its clear voting does have some effect because seats are constantly changing parties, and parties fiercely compete for votes. Other similar examples of this argument: "Everyone knows taxes go to corrupt corporations, they are completely useless get rid of them" "Everyone knows masks dont block 100% of airflow, theyre completely useless!"
    - WaxProlix 4y ago
      > seats are constantly changing parties, and parties fiercely compete for votes Possibly because those seats are worth money. I don't know that people competing for them means voting 'works' in any definitive fashion. Princeton recently released a study (this one[1], I think?) that basically says as much: voting does very little. 1 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
    - Fatnino 4y ago
      What seats are changing party? I live in California where my vote counts the least. Since I turned 18 every single election has sent a Democrat to Washington for both senate seats and my representative and president (though California doesn't have final say on that last one). Currently, of those 4 seats, 3 are in their high 70s or even 80s and the 4th was appointed by the governor. I'm in my 30s. My interests are either entirely not, or very very poorly represented in Washington. Tell me again how my never missing an election has made a difference?
      - 4y ago

Kye 4y ago

How would you know if someone less famous got disappeared? How would you evaluate the claim from people who say they saw it happen?

cscurmudgeon 4y ago
> How would you know if someone less famous got disappeared? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
asdajksah2123 4y ago
Almost everyone living in the US has some sort of record. They went to school, had friends, teachers, family, etc. It's unlikely you wouldn't know someone has disappeared, especially if they were important enough that the government decided to illegally disappear them.
puppymaster 4y ago
By reading and applying critical thinking in evaluating said material. Unless you are parroting the infamous FSB playbook of 'question everything it will muddies the truth'.

anonymousDan 4y ago

Tell that to Julien Assange (ducks).

BrainVirus 4y ago

>Government might be bad, and if they did bad, can we criticize it? Assange rots in prison, Alex Jones gets found guilty of defamation by default judgment, FBI raids James O'Keefe and leaks his phone data to NYT (which he is suing), and to top it all we have a soviet-style shitshow trial directed by politicians in January 6th Committee. Now, I will see some awesome mental gymnastics of people explaining how none of these things have any effect on freedom of speech.

oarsinsync 4y ago
> Alex Jones gets found guilty of defamation by default judgment Given that Alex Jones has in the last 24 hours been found to be lying under oath repeatedly during his trial, since his lawyers accidentally gave a full digital copy of his phone to the prosecuting attorneys (which they were supposed to have done already during discovery, but did not), this may not be the most effective example.
- BrainVirus 4y ago
  It's a perfect example of how people are brainwashed to accept degradation of their basic speech and due process rights because powers that be found an example (a scapegoat, really) that's not sympathetic to the public. I recall the debates around banning Jones from YouTube. It was "sold" as an unprecedented step to combat unprecedented violation of basic decency. And here were are a few years later, when simply mentioning some wrongthink words automatically demonetizes your videos, splatters them with warnings and even cuts live streams from air. People are banned from YouTube left and right (pun intended). It's the new normal and brave technologists who posed as defenders of "real" free speech are mostly rationalizing and cheering it on. BTW, would you care to explain how something that happened in the last 24 hours is relevant to the issuance of default judgment that occurred in November last year?
  - altruios 4y ago
    the default judgment happened after 6 months of 'fuck around and find out' from Alex 'turn the frogs gay' Jones... he putted around with blatant disregard for the trial and cries crocodile tears when he's found lying under oath during the damages hearing... Alex 'you may be my neighbor but i'll eat your ass' jones is not some Bastian of freedom - he's a snake oil salesman profiting off other's pain and misery. selling 'real' pills his family makes. He had due judgement - he had 6 months to do literally anything (He didn't raise a finger in this regard). You don't 'not go to trial' by ignoring it... that's not how this works... not how any of this works. BESIDES ALL THAT: I agree with you: platforms are censoring people... that's in reaction to malicious (not just false - but intentionally crafted and designed to cause harm) information propagating through our social networks - mind viruses just like bulimia and anorexia that are shared socially - only far more potent: things like QAnnon. information is spread not by how true it is - but by how sticky. if malicious actors infect a network - besides censorship - the alternative is violence - either by inaction allowing the malicious mind virus to flourish - or by taking action against it. We are in a brave new world - and we don't even know the tools we need to protect ourselves as a species from the existential threat of memetic viruses... Maybe we just all need to stop sneezing our thoughts out onto the internet letting them congeal into this amalgamations of ideas that seem to have a life of their own. the life status of biological viruses is suspect. I suspect viruses made of thoughts and memetic imagery can potentially reach agent-hood.