4 ms·

Is it still free speech if it may be a campaign by an enemy? China may prefer to send the West into disarray rather than teach their ways. We need to study Chin

by mantas 3y ago

Is it still free speech if it may be a campaign by an enemy? China may prefer to send the West into disarray rather than teach their ways. We need to study China's approach rather than eat up propaganda and twisted media. During cold war US didn't freely allow any USSR propaganda either. Although the late sexual revolution results does remind of 1920s in USSR.

roenxi 3y ago
Something like 10% of US people I've talked to seemed to have a genuine belief that the Trump presidency was a campaign by a foreign enemy. So yes, free speech should be encouraged even then. > During cold war US didn't freely allow any USSR propaganda either. During WWII they rounded up the Japanese. During the cold war they nearly got everyone nuked at least twice. During the wars from 1990->2020 there have been patterns of lies in the justification. Just because something was done doesn't make it a good idea. The cold war would have been safer and led to better outcomes if the US listened to the USSR, and vice versa, at the popular scale. We're still dealing with the fallout insane Russophobia that was engendered in the US halls of power. And had the US had been positioned to step in and help Russia after the fall of the Soviets instead of being caught by surprise mid-war we'd all be in much better shape today. They fumbled the collapse of the Soviet empire pretty badly because they hadn't managed to figure out what was going on on the ground. We're still fighting wars because the US never managed to sit down and make friends with the Russians. If the Saudis were an option, everyone is. The upside of the honest speech is much bigger than whatever downside the propaganda has. The largely unproven and examined downside, I might add; I'm not drawing a case to mind where it was effective and crippling unless there was a superpower using it against someone much smaller.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  How would the US have had more access to people on the ground in the USSR? More spies in country? The reason people "fumbled" after the USSR disintegrated wasn't because the collapse came as a surprise but because the split between using functioning liberal (not in the US political meaning) legal systems outside of Russia for protection while internally in Russia profiting from the lack thereof - I don't think anyone had that split really in their minds when thinking about a new structure there - it was a new phenomenon. People saw what was happening but didn't understand it and the average person on the street there didn't either. Btw., Russia or the USSR made little friends in Europe throughout history, either. I think bold claims that US cold war posture was wrong need a lot more evidence.
- CafeRacer 3y ago
  yeah, russophobia... No one cared about russians until they started doing shit. Like personally, I don't hate russians because they're russians, I hate them for what they've done & keep doing. If russians would have put their money where their mouth is, lots of people would have immigrated there and not even listened to the rest of the world.
  - mantas 3y ago
    It's important to separate Duchy of Muscovy which is philosophical successor of Golden horde from Russians as in Kievan Rus and Ruthenian people who live(d) in western part of modern Russia.
    - CafeRacer 3y ago
      Why?
      - mantas 3y ago
        To make a separation between many tribes/states of Rus/Ruthenian/East slavic people and Muscovites. As in people who support war in Ukraine. Duchy of Moscow took over many other Rus states which were much closer to West/democracy/whatever you want to call them. While Muscovites themselves stuck to tactics they learned while being occupied by Golden horde. What happened in Bucha and elsewhere in Ukraine was the usual Muscovite tactics 500 years ago and it still is. Some things seem to never change.
        CafeRacer 3y ago
        Yeah, well today's tribes/states also participates in what happened. So unless they condemn, stop doing what they're doing and separate it's all the same people. I get they may come from various backgrounds centuries ago, but today it makes no difference.
        mantas 3y ago
- mantas 3y ago
  > We're still dealing with the fallout insane Russophobia that was engendered in the US halls of power. Living in a country that is at war with Duchy of Muscovy (AKA Russia) for the last 500 years... There's plenty of reasons keeping them at bay. Industrialisation of USSR by American capital was one of the grave mistakes that brought WWII. Please don't do that again.
rightbyte 3y ago
Yes it is still free speech. Otherwise the buffoons can claim whatever and shutdown whatever in the name of national insecurity.
- bmitc 3y ago
  Free speech, or rather the first amendment, does not guarantee that you can say whatever you want whenever you want completely without consquences.
  - rightbyte 3y ago
    Sure. I would not be very pleased if e.g. my doctor shared my medical record with whoever would pay for it. I am not arguing for outlawing enforcing secrets.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  OK, so no censorship ever? No treason for telling an enemy secrets in war? Where do you draw a line and why?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - orwin 3y ago
    > OK, so no censorship ever? No treason for telling an enemy secrets in war? Those two aren't equivalent. And just because you cannot make a law to prevent someone to speak, you can punish him afterward, with prison or fines. Diffamation, hate speech, inciting violence, treason are all examples. I do not hold private companies to the same standards.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Wartime censorship is a thing.
      - 3y ago

by mantas 3y ago

roenxi 3y ago

Something like 10% of US people I've talked to seemed to have a genuine belief that the Trump presidency was a campaign by a foreign enemy. So yes, free speech should be encouraged even then. > During cold war US didn't freely allow any USSR propaganda either. During WWII they rounded up the Japanese. During the cold war they nearly got everyone nuked at least twice. During the wars from 1990->2020 there have been patterns of lies in the justification. Just because something was done doesn't make it a good idea. The cold war would have been safer and led to better outcomes if the US listened to the USSR, and vice versa, at the popular scale. We're still dealing with the fallout insane Russophobia that was engendered in the US halls of power. And had the US had been positioned to step in and help Russia after the fall of the Soviets instead of being caught by surprise mid-war we'd all be in much better shape today. They fumbled the collapse of the Soviet empire pretty badly because they hadn't managed to figure out what was going on on the ground. We're still fighting wars because the US never managed to sit down and make friends with the Russians. If the Saudis were an option, everyone is. The upside of the honest speech is much bigger than whatever downside the propaganda has. The largely unproven and examined downside, I might add; I'm not drawing a case to mind where it was effective and crippling unless there was a superpower using it against someone much smaller.

RandomLensman 3y ago
How would the US have had more access to people on the ground in the USSR? More spies in country? The reason people "fumbled" after the USSR disintegrated wasn't because the collapse came as a surprise but because the split between using functioning liberal (not in the US political meaning) legal systems outside of Russia for protection while internally in Russia profiting from the lack thereof - I don't think anyone had that split really in their minds when thinking about a new structure there - it was a new phenomenon. People saw what was happening but didn't understand it and the average person on the street there didn't either. Btw., Russia or the USSR made little friends in Europe throughout history, either. I think bold claims that US cold war posture was wrong need a lot more evidence.
CafeRacer 3y ago
yeah, russophobia... No one cared about russians until they started doing shit. Like personally, I don't hate russians because they're russians, I hate them for what they've done & keep doing. If russians would have put their money where their mouth is, lots of people would have immigrated there and not even listened to the rest of the world.
- mantas 3y ago
  It's important to separate Duchy of Muscovy which is philosophical successor of Golden horde from Russians as in Kievan Rus and Ruthenian people who live(d) in western part of modern Russia.
  - CafeRacer 3y ago
    Why?
    - mantas 3y ago
      To make a separation between many tribes/states of Rus/Ruthenian/East slavic people and Muscovites. As in people who support war in Ukraine. Duchy of Moscow took over many other Rus states which were much closer to West/democracy/whatever you want to call them. While Muscovites themselves stuck to tactics they learned while being occupied by Golden horde. What happened in Bucha and elsewhere in Ukraine was the usual Muscovite tactics 500 years ago and it still is. Some things seem to never change.
      - CafeRacer 3y ago
        Yeah, well today's tribes/states also participates in what happened. So unless they condemn, stop doing what they're doing and separate it's all the same people. I get they may come from various backgrounds centuries ago, but today it makes no difference.
        mantas 3y ago
mantas 3y ago
> We're still dealing with the fallout insane Russophobia that was engendered in the US halls of power. Living in a country that is at war with Duchy of Muscovy (AKA Russia) for the last 500 years... There's plenty of reasons keeping them at bay. Industrialisation of USSR by American capital was one of the grave mistakes that brought WWII. Please don't do that again.

rightbyte 3y ago

Yes it is still free speech. Otherwise the buffoons can claim whatever and shutdown whatever in the name of national insecurity.

bmitc 3y ago
Free speech, or rather the first amendment, does not guarantee that you can say whatever you want whenever you want completely without consquences.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  Sure. I would not be very pleased if e.g. my doctor shared my medical record with whoever would pay for it. I am not arguing for outlawing enforcing secrets.
RandomLensman 3y ago
OK, so no censorship ever? No treason for telling an enemy secrets in war? Where do you draw a line and why?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- orwin 3y ago
  > OK, so no censorship ever? No treason for telling an enemy secrets in war? Those two aren't equivalent. And just because you cannot make a law to prevent someone to speak, you can punish him afterward, with prison or fines. Diffamation, hate speech, inciting violence, treason are all examples. I do not hold private companies to the same standards.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Wartime censorship is a thing.
    - 3y ago