3 ms·

>Are the authoritarians the people that want to ensure public discourse is censored to try to create their vision of an ideal society? No, people coming togeth

by cmh89 4y ago

>Are the authoritarians the people that want to ensure public discourse is censored to try to create their vision of an ideal society? No, people coming together collectively pressure organizations to make changes is the free market solution. Authoritarians censor with the law. >Or the people who just want everybody to be able to freely and openly express themselves? You are more than able to freely and openly express yourself. There are thousands of websites and social media sites you can use, or you can just plain go outside and say whatever you want (for the most part). Businesses have always had the ability to decide what happens on their property (for the most part). It's fine for activists to try and pressure Twitter to make changes and if you don't like those changes, you can become a customer of a different vendor that will let you use whatever racial slurs you want. They are out there. Twitter is also able to not make changes and face the consequences of that. Stop confusing 'censorship' with moderation.

somenameforme 4y ago
Ah! I see! So you can't be authoritarian unless you're the government. And the government can't be authoritarian unless they overtly ban free speech? So incidentally no matter what you do, it's literally impossible for you to be authoritarian? At least until you're elected? And even then you just need to make sure you have some nominal notion of free speech? I gotta say, if I was an authoritarian I'd absolutely love your definition. It's certainly convenient! --- ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law: freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings; freedom of street processions and demonstrations. These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights. --- That's from the 1936 constitution of the USSR, also known as "Stalin's Constitution." https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.h...
- cmh89 4y ago
  You can't be authoritarian if you have no authority over others. The NAACP can't force Musk to do anything. Using collective action to achieve social goals is called democracy. You should take some time to learn about that before rambling about Stalin.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    A system where laws or representatives (who vote on laws) are freely voted on, is called democracy. Tiny groups of self interested individuals imposing their will on others not only has nothing to do with democracy, but is ideologically contrary to everything that democracy stands for. In times past our society was much more decentralized and so literally killing or physically intimidating people was really the only way to try to overtly impose yourself on others. Today, you can make it impossible for people to be able to openly communicate, destroy their businesses or ability to earn a livelihood, and basically just destroy their lives. Many have even been driven to suicide. And this can all be done safely from a distance and without ever resorting to anything even remotely illegal. It's an authoritarian's dream scenario. What you may not appreciate is that authoritarians don't think themselves the bad guys just trying to maliciously impose their will on everybody. They, of course, always think they're creating a better world. This [1] is the Fascist Manifesto, which was the initial public doctrine upon which literal Fascism was framed in. You might find you agree with most ideas there. I do as well. The reason Fascism came to be seen as little more than a slur is not because of their stated views, but because of their actions and behaviors. So too today. The small minority of people running around trying to censor people, get them fired, destroy their businesses, and just generally cause chaos unless you conform are not going to be go down on the proverbial "right side of history" even if their ideas, on paper, might be perfectly great. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto

by cmh89 4y ago

somenameforme 4y ago

Ah! I see! So you can't be authoritarian unless you're the government. And the government can't be authoritarian unless they overtly ban free speech? So incidentally no matter what you do, it's literally impossible for you to be authoritarian? At least until you're elected? And even then you just need to make sure you have some nominal notion of free speech? I gotta say, if I was an authoritarian I'd absolutely love your definition. It's certainly convenient! --- ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law: freedom of speech; freedom of the press; freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings; freedom of street processions and demonstrations. These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights. --- That's from the 1936 constitution of the USSR, also known as "Stalin's Constitution." https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.html https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/1936toc.h...

cmh89 4y ago
You can't be authoritarian if you have no authority over others. The NAACP can't force Musk to do anything. Using collective action to achieve social goals is called democracy. You should take some time to learn about that before rambling about Stalin.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  A system where laws or representatives (who vote on laws) are freely voted on, is called democracy. Tiny groups of self interested individuals imposing their will on others not only has nothing to do with democracy, but is ideologically contrary to everything that democracy stands for. In times past our society was much more decentralized and so literally killing or physically intimidating people was really the only way to try to overtly impose yourself on others. Today, you can make it impossible for people to be able to openly communicate, destroy their businesses or ability to earn a livelihood, and basically just destroy their lives. Many have even been driven to suicide. And this can all be done safely from a distance and without ever resorting to anything even remotely illegal. It's an authoritarian's dream scenario. What you may not appreciate is that authoritarians don't think themselves the bad guys just trying to maliciously impose their will on everybody. They, of course, always think they're creating a better world. This [1] is the Fascist Manifesto, which was the initial public doctrine upon which literal Fascism was framed in. You might find you agree with most ideas there. I do as well. The reason Fascism came to be seen as little more than a slur is not because of their stated views, but because of their actions and behaviors. So too today. The small minority of people running around trying to censor people, get them fired, destroy their businesses, and just generally cause chaos unless you conform are not going to be go down on the proverbial "right side of history" even if their ideas, on paper, might be perfectly great. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_Manifesto