4 ms·

I understand the sentiment, I really do. I also acknowledge that what you offer is more immediately actionable than what I have, but I really hope we can be a l

I understand the sentiment, I really do. I also acknowledge that what you offer is more immediately actionable than what I have, but I really hope we can be a little more thoughtful than that. I happen to believe that the success we've seen has been, in large part at least, due to being able to take democracy for granted. We haven't had to fight for basic rights or the privilege of survival, so we've been able to fight much more ideological fights. We have rightfully had the assumption that even as we all fight bitterly over politics, you won't send your navy to attack my ports. We were safe in our disagreements being intellectual. I fear that while defending our stable democratic institutions we end up supplanting those very same institutions with the enemy. You cannot fight lawlessness with lawlessness, you must chose to be soft and level headed, even it feels most hobbling. Else we risk becoming Trump in the name of warding him off.

consumer451 1y ago
I am honestly not sure what I am proposing myself, exactly. However, if we read each other correctly, I think I agree with your concerns. Might we both be touching on/dancing around the concept of the "paradox of tolerance?" [0] As a practical example, one of the most European things in modern history was this beheading of the monarch live music video [1], which was broadcast to the world as part of the Olympic opening ceremonies in Paris. I remember seeing how uncomfortable it made the broadcasters in various countries. It was glorious. Revolution can happen, and this was a reminder. We should never shy away from discussion of our history. I am not a huge metal fan, but this tiny part of the opening ceremonies event makes me very emotional and proud to my deepest core. I still cannot believe it happened. We should be reminding everyone of the French revolution, its non-ideal near term outcomes, and other uncomfortable European history very regularly. As you stated in your original reply, it is easy to forget how we got here. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hTMYk7orHw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hTMYk7orHw
consumer451 1y ago
> You cannot fight lawlessness with lawlessness, you must chose to be soft and level headed, even it feels most hobbling. Else we risk becoming Trump in the name of warding him off. I am with you my friend! In the interest of open discussion and understanding, I made this separate comment to ask you, or anyone, to please share what your concerns were here. If you don't mind, could you please give an example of how you see it possibly going wrong?
tremon 1y ago
You cannot fight lawlessness with lawlessness This is not true, and worse, this attitude is self-defeating when you have no control over the law nor its application (as is arguably the case right now in the USA). True, you cannot rebuild on top of lawlessness, but you need to reach the rebuilding stage first. And the further you let the current regime entrench itself, the more lawlessness will be required to destroy it.
- consumer451 1y ago
  I am not sure what exactly gp was referring to, but the authoritarians are currently winning by simply, and peacefully, "flooding the zone." Well, they also own the majority of the media. However, they are not yet all powerful. We need a grassroots pro-EU, pro-democracy, NAFO-type movement. For now, we need to just fight with posts, comments, and podcasts, across all social media. As sad and boring as it might be, that's exactly how elections are won and lost these days.
  - saubeidl 1y ago
    We need more than that. We need a hybrid warfare style approach. Flooding social media with pro-EU propaganda LLMs, sponsoring opposition politicians in authoritarian states and inciting protests against authoritarian governments. Our adversaries are all doing it. It's time we stop tying our own hands.
- delusional 1y ago
  > when you have no control over the law The term "lawlessness" in the way I use it isn't narrowly scoped to the specific set of laws a government has arrived at. I'm not saying you must follow the laws of the system to break the system, that will never happen. When I say "lawlessness" I'm thinking of a broad idea of a person who will succumb to no law. I agree that there must be turmoil to institute a new order, that is true no matter which dominant system you seek to replace, but at the end of the turmoil you must establish new rules, new law, which the winners of the struggle must then themselves adhere to. In this way they are not lawless, merely in disagreement with what the laws are.

consumer451 1y ago

I am honestly not sure what I am proposing myself, exactly. However, if we read each other correctly, I think I agree with your concerns. Might we both be touching on/dancing around the concept of the "paradox of tolerance?" [0] As a practical example, one of the most European things in modern history was this beheading of the monarch live music video [1], which was broadcast to the world as part of the Olympic opening ceremonies in Paris. I remember seeing how uncomfortable it made the broadcasters in various countries. It was glorious. Revolution can happen, and this was a reminder. We should never shy away from discussion of our history. I am not a huge metal fan, but this tiny part of the opening ceremonies event makes me very emotional and proud to my deepest core. I still cannot believe it happened. We should be reminding everyone of the French revolution, its non-ideal near term outcomes, and other uncomfortable European history very regularly. As you stated in your original reply, it is easy to forget how we got here. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hTMYk7orHw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hTMYk7orHw

consumer451 1y ago

> You cannot fight lawlessness with lawlessness, you must chose to be soft and level headed, even it feels most hobbling. Else we risk becoming Trump in the name of warding him off. I am with you my friend! In the interest of open discussion and understanding, I made this separate comment to ask you, or anyone, to please share what your concerns were here. If you don't mind, could you please give an example of how you see it possibly going wrong?

tremon 1y ago

You cannot fight lawlessness with lawlessness This is not true, and worse, this attitude is self-defeating when you have no control over the law nor its application (as is arguably the case right now in the USA). True, you cannot rebuild on top of lawlessness, but you need to reach the rebuilding stage first. And the further you let the current regime entrench itself, the more lawlessness will be required to destroy it.

consumer451 1y ago
I am not sure what exactly gp was referring to, but the authoritarians are currently winning by simply, and peacefully, "flooding the zone." Well, they also own the majority of the media. However, they are not yet all powerful. We need a grassroots pro-EU, pro-democracy, NAFO-type movement. For now, we need to just fight with posts, comments, and podcasts, across all social media. As sad and boring as it might be, that's exactly how elections are won and lost these days.
- saubeidl 1y ago
  We need more than that. We need a hybrid warfare style approach. Flooding social media with pro-EU propaganda LLMs, sponsoring opposition politicians in authoritarian states and inciting protests against authoritarian governments. Our adversaries are all doing it. It's time we stop tying our own hands.
delusional 1y ago
> when you have no control over the law The term "lawlessness" in the way I use it isn't narrowly scoped to the specific set of laws a government has arrived at. I'm not saying you must follow the laws of the system to break the system, that will never happen. When I say "lawlessness" I'm thinking of a broad idea of a person who will succumb to no law. I agree that there must be turmoil to institute a new order, that is true no matter which dominant system you seek to replace, but at the end of the turmoil you must establish new rules, new law, which the winners of the struggle must then themselves adhere to. In this way they are not lawless, merely in disagreement with what the laws are.