3 ms·

Tangent to this idea, is the idea that if you consume news from an extremely biased source, as long as their biases align with your biases, it seems like a "neu

Tangent to this idea, is the idea that if you consume news from an extremely biased source, as long as their biases align with your biases, it seems like a "neutral" or unbiased source and you simply can't believe people who say that your news is biased. In actuality, if you were actually consuming an unbiased news source, you would be exposed to ideas and arguments you disagree with, you would be exposed to all sides of issues. You would read things you like, and things you don't like. It would make arguments for things you believe in, and good faith arguments for things you don't.

cubefox 3y ago
In communist countries there was some sort of limited freedom of speech (there is a specific name to it, but I forgot) which allowed lively debate, but only within tight boundaries. The problem with this is that it creates an illusion that there is freedom of speech. Because after all, disagreement is allowed to exist. But only as long as the disagreement doesn't touch on topics that are forbidden by the censors. Now the same arguably exists in democratic forums as well. Except here it mostly isn't a literal censor, but an invisible Overton window, that dictates what is in the realm of being debatable, and what must not be questioned by anyone.
- immibis 3y ago
  Capitalist countries have this too. You can say "free Israel", but if you say "free Palestine" you get doxxed, fired from your job and maybe evicted from your home. It's more subtle, because instead of immediately getting taken and sent to a gulag for your speech, the path is somewhat indirect, but still just as clear.
  - cubefox 3y ago
    I think realistically "free Palestine" wouldn't get you fired, just like "free Israel" wouldn't. I think a better example is this: Saying "black lives matter" is perfectly acceptable, but saying "white lives matter" would probably get you in massive trouble.
    - immibis 3y ago
      Many people have already been fired for saying "free Palestine". It isn't hypothetical.
      - cubefox 3y ago
        I don't think this is true.

cubefox 3y ago

In communist countries there was some sort of limited freedom of speech (there is a specific name to it, but I forgot) which allowed lively debate, but only within tight boundaries. The problem with this is that it creates an illusion that there is freedom of speech. Because after all, disagreement is allowed to exist. But only as long as the disagreement doesn't touch on topics that are forbidden by the censors. Now the same arguably exists in democratic forums as well. Except here it mostly isn't a literal censor, but an invisible Overton window, that dictates what is in the realm of being debatable, and what must not be questioned by anyone.

immibis 3y ago
Capitalist countries have this too. You can say "free Israel", but if you say "free Palestine" you get doxxed, fired from your job and maybe evicted from your home. It's more subtle, because instead of immediately getting taken and sent to a gulag for your speech, the path is somewhat indirect, but still just as clear.
- cubefox 3y ago
  I think realistically "free Palestine" wouldn't get you fired, just like "free Israel" wouldn't. I think a better example is this: Saying "black lives matter" is perfectly acceptable, but saying "white lives matter" would probably get you in massive trouble.
  - immibis 3y ago
    Many people have already been fired for saying "free Palestine". It isn't hypothetical.
    - cubefox 3y ago
      I don't think this is true.