3 ms·

>I hope it goes remembered. It won't be. Willful ignorance is a cornerstone of the movement. You can't lie about what you don't know. You can't have a bad take

>I hope it goes remembered. It won't be. Willful ignorance is a cornerstone of the movement. You can't lie about what you don't know. You can't have a bad take if you don't know. Upton Sinclaire said in the 1930's: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Now add to "salary" "identity", "relationships", "sense of belonging to the group". This is why critical, independent thinking, speaking truth to power, must be separately honored and encouraged by a healthy culture, because these attributes are by default mercilessly punished. (Physical courage and heroism are honored by a healthy culture for similar reasons.)

JackYoustra 1y ago
I mostly agree, although I really disagree with 'speaking truth to power' — I feel like the outsized reverence for this is exactly what got us into this mess. For YEARS, there's been a culture of celebrating opposition for opposition's sake, a performative stance of always positioning oneself against the perceived holders of power, rather than critically evaluating the actual accuracy or value of what's being said. Democrats are repeatedly pilloried simply because they govern while the Republicans cosplay as a permanent opposition, and therefore became 'the power' to speak against. Governing inherently involves trade-offs, compromises, and complex realities that never match ideological purity. Thus, an atmosphere developed where people who engaged in governance—and therefore took responsibility for difficult, real-world outcomes—became easy targets for criticism that was more interested in the aesthetics of "truth to power" than in providing accurate analyses or constructive solutions. As a result, "speaking truth to power" became a performance, disconnected from accountability or genuine insight. The loudest critics weren’t necessarily those with the most accurate or useful truths, just those who most visibly positioned themselves as opposing power structures. This reinforced public cynicism and undermined nuanced understanding of governance and policy, further obscuring genuine critique and necessary reforms.
- simpaticoder 1y ago
  I agree that "speaking truth to power" can, and has been, abused. Treated as an end unto itself it becomes mere contrarianism, and loses the "truth" part of the phrase. I mean it in its original sense: speaking up when it is dangerous for you to speak, particularly when you have evidence of misdeeds by the powerful (the lack of evidence is another pervasive issue with most online speech - mere allegation against those you don't like is enough, it seems, for most people). When the government can disappear its critics and optionally suppress news of the disappearance, then critics deserve praise and honor.

JackYoustra 1y ago

I mostly agree, although I really disagree with 'speaking truth to power' — I feel like the outsized reverence for this is exactly what got us into this mess. For YEARS, there's been a culture of celebrating opposition for opposition's sake, a performative stance of always positioning oneself against the perceived holders of power, rather than critically evaluating the actual accuracy or value of what's being said. Democrats are repeatedly pilloried simply because they govern while the Republicans cosplay as a permanent opposition, and therefore became 'the power' to speak against. Governing inherently involves trade-offs, compromises, and complex realities that never match ideological purity. Thus, an atmosphere developed where people who engaged in governance—and therefore took responsibility for difficult, real-world outcomes—became easy targets for criticism that was more interested in the aesthetics of "truth to power" than in providing accurate analyses or constructive solutions. As a result, "speaking truth to power" became a performance, disconnected from accountability or genuine insight. The loudest critics weren’t necessarily those with the most accurate or useful truths, just those who most visibly positioned themselves as opposing power structures. This reinforced public cynicism and undermined nuanced understanding of governance and policy, further obscuring genuine critique and necessary reforms.

simpaticoder 1y ago
I agree that "speaking truth to power" can, and has been, abused. Treated as an end unto itself it becomes mere contrarianism, and loses the "truth" part of the phrase. I mean it in its original sense: speaking up when it is dangerous for you to speak, particularly when you have evidence of misdeeds by the powerful (the lack of evidence is another pervasive issue with most online speech - mere allegation against those you don't like is enough, it seems, for most people). When the government can disappear its critics and optionally suppress news of the disappearance, then critics deserve praise and honor.