9 ms·

Hard-earned freedoms are wasted on societies who don't have memories of what it took to earn them. Freedom is a ratchet: slides easily and frictionlessly one wa

Hard-earned freedoms are wasted on societies who don't have memories of what it took to earn them. Freedom is a ratchet: slides easily and frictionlessly one way, and offers immense resistance in the other. This is all so disheartening.

jay-barronville 1y ago
Hard agree. I’m always trying to get my fellow young Americans to understand this and it seems to go right over their heads a lot of times. My parents lived through multiple oppressive dictatorships before emigrating to America. Once I understood everything that they and their families experienced (e.g., family members being kidnapped, disappeared, and eventually murdered simply due their political views), I gained a much deeper appreciation for our Constitution (in particular, our Bill of Rights). Nowadays, watching how easy it is to get folks to give in to censorship and tyranny for psychological “safety” scares me sometimes (especially when it’s all due to politics). No matter what someone’s views are (and how offensive I may find them to be), I’ll never ever advocate for their censorship, because I understand where that can lead. Today, it’s your opponent; tomorrow, it’s you.
- whimsicalism 1y ago
  liberalism is passé nowadays, but it will see a resurgence akin to the “hard times make hard people, hard people make good times” cycle
- SamoyedFurFluff 1y ago
  I actually don’t know if I agree with the last part. A chunk of the Rwandan genocide was a radio station instigating and advocating for the mass slaughter of a people. Atrocities in Myanmar also were originally advocated for in Facebook. On more personal levels, domestic abuse is also psychological torture and the wearing down of a person with words and it should be in someone’s right to file a restraining order to stop being contacted by their abuser even if the abuser doesn’t perform physical violence. That is to say I broadly agree with the notion that speech should be relatively unfettered, but I do believe there must be exceptions for speech that actively aims to fetter people. We must limit speech that advocates limiting the freedoms of people to live as independent and equal citizens.
  - foxglacier 1y ago
    That's a huge leap from directly instigating genocide that actually happened to "We must limit speech that advocates limiting the freedoms of people to live as independent and equal citizens." which is severe censorship of all sorts of political ideas, including ones which we already enact and most people agree with. There's a lot of widely-accepted government-enforced inequality (foreigners, prisoners, convicts, children, inherited rights, etc.) which just shows how overly broad the restrictions you say we must impose are. Even yourself saying that could be interpreted as a violation of your own rule! You also advocated for restraining orders! You're your own enemy. Your opinion could really benefit from some back and forth with other people to refine it into something more sensible. Hopefully I'm contributing a little to that.
    - bilbo0s 1y ago
      I don’t know man? You need moderation both ways. Yes to the First. But also yes to the cops arresting a kid who posts on social media that he’s gonna kill all his classmates tomorrow morning. Bonus points if the cops arrest him before he goes to school tomorrow. Couching threats of violence in political language shouldn’t change anything in that regard. (Well, it does these days. But it shouldn’t. That’s how you get kids gunned down at prayer.) Anyway, bottom line is, adherence to the First doesn’t mean we abandon law enforcement, or military sense.
      - jay-barronville 1y ago
        > But also yes to the cops arresting a kid who posts on social media that he’s gonna kill all his classmates tomorrow morning. I think that everyone (yes, literally everyone) would agree that direct incitements and threats of violence such as this would be fine to censor and deal with appropriately. As a free speech advocate, I know a lot of folks with free speech absolutist views yet I don’t know a single person who’d be against any of that. The reality though is that, in practice, these extreme examples tend to be used to justify censorship only to end up making the rules vague and subjective enough that, sooner or later, folks start being censored for wrongthink. Also, “moderation” is just a soft term for censorship.
cedws 1y ago
I’m not aware of a single nation where the ratchet is loosening. It appears freedom is being eroded everywhere. The most disheartening thing is that nothing works to stop it. There are countries where millions of people have protested, but in time the protests always fizzle or are stamped out, and things continue on the same trajectory.
- tomrod 1y ago
  I fear that your observations speaks more to protest being an inefficient catalyst for regime change more than it speaks to the efforts and initiatives to preserve freedom. The jetset class doesn't really care about a single nation. For good (trade binds fractious governments) or ill (neofeudalism), they try to separate themselves from the proles.
  - mensetmanusman 1y ago
    Hilton is their passport.
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
    To be fair the people who care about a single nation, to the detriment of all other nations, are freaks
    - tomrod 1y ago
      Aye, it sort of sucks. A global government that could also respect privacy would be a good thing, IMO, except for when it leans authoritarian.
      - r3trohack3r 1y ago
        A maintainable altruistic ruling class is a myth. When you centralize power you’ve created a point of control/leverage with significant value. It will eventually be captured. > except for when it leans authoritarian Totalitarianism, Crony Capitalism, State Enforced Communism, Authoritarianism, etc. are all variations of the same root rot: centralization. When you centralize power you will always get centralized power. A global centralized power is terrifying.
mothballed 1y ago
I'm totally ignorant of the human right situation in nepal. In the copy I found of their constitution, it only mentioned freedom of speech for the government. On their house floor. What was it like there in recent times? Much state repression for political thought or unapproved opinions?
- yieldcrv 1y ago
  Always have to look deeper either way The Chinese constitution guarantees free speech universally, another part of the constitution is used to control all facets of life in line with the state narrative, and that’s a charitable interpretation when we just pretend that the process of law matters at all, and distinguish when it is just procedural theatre or a real constraint on the state Conflicting parts of constitutions can change everything
  - mothballed 1y ago
    Appreciate the analysis. Do you think this is the status quo continuing in Nepal, or is the human right situation degrading?
    - forkeep 1y ago
      [dead]
  - perihelions 1y ago
    The Chinese, North Korean, and old USSR constitutions all contain(ed) strong language "guaranteeing" universal freedom of speech. It's a bit like that Game of Thrones scene where Sean Bean brings a slip of paper into the throne room.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  A Constitution is just a piece of paper. I think Westerners and perhaps especially Americans think it has intrinsic power because they have a strong rule of law and effective independent courts so they are used to their Constitution being well inforced. However, in a country where this is not the case the Constitution is just a piece of paper...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
KaiserPro 1y ago
> are wasted on societies who don't have memories of what it took to earn them I mean thats a bit rich given the massive civil war, dictatorship and overthrow of the monarchy that all happened within living memory.
- SirHumphrey 1y ago
  It's an overtly American perspective - perspective of a nation perpetually terrified of repeating the downfall of the Roman Republic. In reality long periods of political instability make people quite happy to trade freedoms for peace.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > long periods of political instability make people quite happy to trade freedoms for peace To be fair, the Romans traded long periods of recurring civil wars for peace. We’re nowhere close to that in America.
whimsicalism 1y ago
I am perfectly fine living in a society where you are not free to assault/storm government buildings and personally believe that the Jan 6th riots should have been met with more violent force than what occurred to protect the congressional proceedings.
- fruitworks 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - whimsicalism 1y ago
    all that from one comment, huh?
    - fruitworks 1y ago
      Who do you want to step in to save the capitol from armed right wing protesters? The police and the military are largely sympathetic to the right wing. The only solution is for the left-wing of US politics to stop disarming itself. The reason that voting power exists is because it represents the fighting power of the voters. When you decouple the two, you create a power imbalance that gangsters and tyrants can exploit. Capitol riots are just a symptom of that power imbalance.
      - whimsicalism 1y ago
        jeez and you accuse me of LARPing online. call me when your revolution starts
        fruitworks 1y ago
        How to win any argument on HN: 0. Start by moving the overton window to the edge of civility. Do not provide any justifications for your opinion. For example, "Protestors inside a government building should be met with violence" 1. Don't address any points they make 2. Make a snarky passive agressive response, thus winning. 3. Flag them for hurting your feelings. By discussing your ideas concretely ("who should perform the violence" "why?"), they have explored the "uncivil" aspects. This grounds for deleting their comment.
andrepd 1y ago
Even the memories are no antidote. In the Philippines the memory of Marcos didn't stop autocrats from rising to power. Even in Europe, countries with relatively recent memories of autocracy and fascism, such as Portugal and Spain, have far-right parties with >20% seats in Parliament, just like in France or Germany. What is to be done?
- 1234letshaveatw 1y ago
  celebrate?
- niteshpant 1y ago
  It is not a question of what, but a question of why. Why do autocrats rise to power? Why are far-right parties rising in power in Germany, France, Spain and Portugal? I've come to see this as a fundamental human nature one can't go against. Some people are, just evil. Humans will always love self more than others. This love of self can turn into a hatred of others, or easily be turned into a hatred of others. Acceptance that evil forces and opportunitists and populists will always be around us is the first step in asnwering what is to be done
  - titanomachy 1y ago
    If the closest you can get to understanding populists is “some humans are just evil and selfish”, a large part of humanity will remain mysterious and unreachable to you. I think everyone understands tribalism to some extent. You would probably expend more effort to protect your child than you would a stranger. Populism just turns up the knob on this instinct.
  - rmah 1y ago
    Calling people who hold beliefs you find wrong "evil" is, IMO, counter-productive and will lead not only to conflict but to worse outcomes for yourself (even if your side "wins"). The root of cultural differences (both within and between societies and sub-cultures) are differing beliefs of what is right and wrong; what is morally good and morally bad. What you view as hateful, others will view as loving. And what you view as loving, others can view as hateful. Painting the opposition in simplistic terms like "evil" and refusing to even try to see why they feel they way they feel solves nothing and empowers extremists. And when groups led by such people "win", the majority still lose. IMO, any side of any belief, be it individualism vs collectivism, atheism vs religion, sexual openness vs sexual restraint, free speech vs censorship, capitalism vs socialism, etc, etc. can easily morph into something harmful. You may have discovered "evil", but after many decades, I've come to see that most people's hearts are in the right place. But there are always a significant fraction on any side of any issue that, for whatever reason, cannot regulate their emotions and seem to need to strive for the extremes. Compromise can happen if you reject extremists. Solutions can be found if you understand that the extremists on your own side are as much the opposition as the other side of an issue. Purity of belief always seems attractive on the surface. But moderation is not a cop out, it's pragmatism. Moderation is the practical philosophy through which solutions can be found. Fundamentalism, extremism, dogmatism, are approaches that lead to worse outcomes. Moderation leads to better outcomes. History has shown this again and again.
brazukadev 1y ago
What is disheartening? People fighting to keep using Facebook, Instagram? I think this looks more like brainwashing.

jay-barronville 1y ago

Hard agree. I’m always trying to get my fellow young Americans to understand this and it seems to go right over their heads a lot of times. My parents lived through multiple oppressive dictatorships before emigrating to America. Once I understood everything that they and their families experienced (e.g., family members being kidnapped, disappeared, and eventually murdered simply due their political views), I gained a much deeper appreciation for our Constitution (in particular, our Bill of Rights). Nowadays, watching how easy it is to get folks to give in to censorship and tyranny for psychological “safety” scares me sometimes (especially when it’s all due to politics). No matter what someone’s views are (and how offensive I may find them to be), I’ll never ever advocate for their censorship, because I understand where that can lead. Today, it’s your opponent; tomorrow, it’s you.

whimsicalism 1y ago
liberalism is passé nowadays, but it will see a resurgence akin to the “hard times make hard people, hard people make good times” cycle
SamoyedFurFluff 1y ago
I actually don’t know if I agree with the last part. A chunk of the Rwandan genocide was a radio station instigating and advocating for the mass slaughter of a people. Atrocities in Myanmar also were originally advocated for in Facebook. On more personal levels, domestic abuse is also psychological torture and the wearing down of a person with words and it should be in someone’s right to file a restraining order to stop being contacted by their abuser even if the abuser doesn’t perform physical violence. That is to say I broadly agree with the notion that speech should be relatively unfettered, but I do believe there must be exceptions for speech that actively aims to fetter people. We must limit speech that advocates limiting the freedoms of people to live as independent and equal citizens.
- foxglacier 1y ago
  That's a huge leap from directly instigating genocide that actually happened to "We must limit speech that advocates limiting the freedoms of people to live as independent and equal citizens." which is severe censorship of all sorts of political ideas, including ones which we already enact and most people agree with. There's a lot of widely-accepted government-enforced inequality (foreigners, prisoners, convicts, children, inherited rights, etc.) which just shows how overly broad the restrictions you say we must impose are. Even yourself saying that could be interpreted as a violation of your own rule! You also advocated for restraining orders! You're your own enemy. Your opinion could really benefit from some back and forth with other people to refine it into something more sensible. Hopefully I'm contributing a little to that.
  - bilbo0s 1y ago
    I don’t know man? You need moderation both ways. Yes to the First. But also yes to the cops arresting a kid who posts on social media that he’s gonna kill all his classmates tomorrow morning. Bonus points if the cops arrest him before he goes to school tomorrow. Couching threats of violence in political language shouldn’t change anything in that regard. (Well, it does these days. But it shouldn’t. That’s how you get kids gunned down at prayer.) Anyway, bottom line is, adherence to the First doesn’t mean we abandon law enforcement, or military sense.
    - jay-barronville 1y ago
      > But also yes to the cops arresting a kid who posts on social media that he’s gonna kill all his classmates tomorrow morning. I think that everyone (yes, literally everyone) would agree that direct incitements and threats of violence such as this would be fine to censor and deal with appropriately. As a free speech advocate, I know a lot of folks with free speech absolutist views yet I don’t know a single person who’d be against any of that. The reality though is that, in practice, these extreme examples tend to be used to justify censorship only to end up making the rules vague and subjective enough that, sooner or later, folks start being censored for wrongthink. Also, “moderation” is just a soft term for censorship.

cedws 1y ago

I’m not aware of a single nation where the ratchet is loosening. It appears freedom is being eroded everywhere. The most disheartening thing is that nothing works to stop it. There are countries where millions of people have protested, but in time the protests always fizzle or are stamped out, and things continue on the same trajectory.

tomrod 1y ago
I fear that your observations speaks more to protest being an inefficient catalyst for regime change more than it speaks to the efforts and initiatives to preserve freedom. The jetset class doesn't really care about a single nation. For good (trade binds fractious governments) or ill (neofeudalism), they try to separate themselves from the proles.
- mensetmanusman 1y ago
  Hilton is their passport.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
  To be fair the people who care about a single nation, to the detriment of all other nations, are freaks
  - tomrod 1y ago
    Aye, it sort of sucks. A global government that could also respect privacy would be a good thing, IMO, except for when it leans authoritarian.
    - r3trohack3r 1y ago
      A maintainable altruistic ruling class is a myth. When you centralize power you’ve created a point of control/leverage with significant value. It will eventually be captured. > except for when it leans authoritarian Totalitarianism, Crony Capitalism, State Enforced Communism, Authoritarianism, etc. are all variations of the same root rot: centralization. When you centralize power you will always get centralized power. A global centralized power is terrifying.

mothballed 1y ago

I'm totally ignorant of the human right situation in nepal. In the copy I found of their constitution, it only mentioned freedom of speech for the government. On their house floor. What was it like there in recent times? Much state repression for political thought or unapproved opinions?

yieldcrv 1y ago
Always have to look deeper either way The Chinese constitution guarantees free speech universally, another part of the constitution is used to control all facets of life in line with the state narrative, and that’s a charitable interpretation when we just pretend that the process of law matters at all, and distinguish when it is just procedural theatre or a real constraint on the state Conflicting parts of constitutions can change everything
- mothballed 1y ago
  Appreciate the analysis. Do you think this is the status quo continuing in Nepal, or is the human right situation degrading?
  - forkeep 1y ago
    [dead]
- perihelions 1y ago
  The Chinese, North Korean, and old USSR constitutions all contain(ed) strong language "guaranteeing" universal freedom of speech. It's a bit like that Game of Thrones scene where Sean Bean brings a slip of paper into the throne room.
mytailorisrich 1y ago
A Constitution is just a piece of paper. I think Westerners and perhaps especially Americans think it has intrinsic power because they have a strong rule of law and effective independent courts so they are used to their Constitution being well inforced. However, in a country where this is not the case the Constitution is just a piece of paper...

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

KaiserPro 1y ago

> are wasted on societies who don't have memories of what it took to earn them I mean thats a bit rich given the massive civil war, dictatorship and overthrow of the monarchy that all happened within living memory.

SirHumphrey 1y ago
It's an overtly American perspective - perspective of a nation perpetually terrified of repeating the downfall of the Roman Republic. In reality long periods of political instability make people quite happy to trade freedoms for peace.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > long periods of political instability make people quite happy to trade freedoms for peace To be fair, the Romans traded long periods of recurring civil wars for peace. We’re nowhere close to that in America.

whimsicalism 1y ago

I am perfectly fine living in a society where you are not free to assault/storm government buildings and personally believe that the Jan 6th riots should have been met with more violent force than what occurred to protect the congressional proceedings.

fruitworks 1y ago
[flagged]
- whimsicalism 1y ago
  all that from one comment, huh?
  - fruitworks 1y ago
    Who do you want to step in to save the capitol from armed right wing protesters? The police and the military are largely sympathetic to the right wing. The only solution is for the left-wing of US politics to stop disarming itself. The reason that voting power exists is because it represents the fighting power of the voters. When you decouple the two, you create a power imbalance that gangsters and tyrants can exploit. Capitol riots are just a symptom of that power imbalance.
    - whimsicalism 1y ago
      jeez and you accuse me of LARPing online. call me when your revolution starts
      - fruitworks 1y ago
        How to win any argument on HN: 0. Start by moving the overton window to the edge of civility. Do not provide any justifications for your opinion. For example, "Protestors inside a government building should be met with violence" 1. Don't address any points they make 2. Make a snarky passive agressive response, thus winning. 3. Flag them for hurting your feelings. By discussing your ideas concretely ("who should perform the violence" "why?"), they have explored the "uncivil" aspects. This grounds for deleting their comment.

andrepd 1y ago

Even the memories are no antidote. In the Philippines the memory of Marcos didn't stop autocrats from rising to power. Even in Europe, countries with relatively recent memories of autocracy and fascism, such as Portugal and Spain, have far-right parties with >20% seats in Parliament, just like in France or Germany. What is to be done?

1234letshaveatw 1y ago
celebrate?
niteshpant 1y ago
It is not a question of what, but a question of why. Why do autocrats rise to power? Why are far-right parties rising in power in Germany, France, Spain and Portugal? I've come to see this as a fundamental human nature one can't go against. Some people are, just evil. Humans will always love self more than others. This love of self can turn into a hatred of others, or easily be turned into a hatred of others. Acceptance that evil forces and opportunitists and populists will always be around us is the first step in asnwering what is to be done
- titanomachy 1y ago
  If the closest you can get to understanding populists is “some humans are just evil and selfish”, a large part of humanity will remain mysterious and unreachable to you. I think everyone understands tribalism to some extent. You would probably expend more effort to protect your child than you would a stranger. Populism just turns up the knob on this instinct.
- rmah 1y ago
  Calling people who hold beliefs you find wrong "evil" is, IMO, counter-productive and will lead not only to conflict but to worse outcomes for yourself (even if your side "wins"). The root of cultural differences (both within and between societies and sub-cultures) are differing beliefs of what is right and wrong; what is morally good and morally bad. What you view as hateful, others will view as loving. And what you view as loving, others can view as hateful. Painting the opposition in simplistic terms like "evil" and refusing to even try to see why they feel they way they feel solves nothing and empowers extremists. And when groups led by such people "win", the majority still lose. IMO, any side of any belief, be it individualism vs collectivism, atheism vs religion, sexual openness vs sexual restraint, free speech vs censorship, capitalism vs socialism, etc, etc. can easily morph into something harmful. You may have discovered "evil", but after many decades, I've come to see that most people's hearts are in the right place. But there are always a significant fraction on any side of any issue that, for whatever reason, cannot regulate their emotions and seem to need to strive for the extremes. Compromise can happen if you reject extremists. Solutions can be found if you understand that the extremists on your own side are as much the opposition as the other side of an issue. Purity of belief always seems attractive on the surface. But moderation is not a cop out, it's pragmatism. Moderation is the practical philosophy through which solutions can be found. Fundamentalism, extremism, dogmatism, are approaches that lead to worse outcomes. Moderation leads to better outcomes. History has shown this again and again.

brazukadev 1y ago

What is disheartening? People fighting to keep using Facebook, Instagram? I think this looks more like brainwashing.