distic
1yr ago
like the framework of being a revolutionary ideology to remake all society in their own image
The libertarians are the same, so they are some kind of socialists?
If just being racist and homophobic is enough, then Marx, Engels and Guevera are "far-right"
Racism and homophobia weren't particularly important in their politics. That is what matters.
If we're going to ignore the distinctions and categories enough to group Brandon Sanderson with the Nazis
I never said you should group Brandon Sanderson with the nazis because I don't know him and I'm not interested in fantasy authors anyway. That is not my point, and that is certainly not the point of the wikipedia article either.
distic
1yr ago
But it seems to me that in countries that implement a strong censorship, like eg Russia, the justice system, including prison, is a lot more instrumental than reddit censorship which has yet to prove dangerous. The justice system has to establish what is true or false (for example did you and did you not murder X?), and this power on truth is the very basis of polical censorship (remember 1984 Ministry of Truth).
Once you've been able to stop people saying something small you don't like hearing, why would you stop?
Because the law is well written and only allows you to ban harmless things? That's like death penalty. If you kill criminal, why wouldn't you kill political opponents? The answer is that you can't because it isn't allowed. Why is it possible to draw a line for the harmless use of the justice system and not for the harmless use of small censorship?
It's also an outcome we've literally watched in history on multiple occasions.
Just like the justice system has been used for repression a lot. Or the army. Russia used poisoned tea to kill political opponent, so is drinking tea a first step toward political assassination? The only thing that could convince me completely is a proof that the censorship as it exists is already dangerous. There are other restrictions on freedom of speech (eg you cannot publish classified material). Is forbidding the word "nigger" really more dangerous than allowing the government to keep secrets that no one is allowed to tell?
distic
10mo ago
Americans were wildly misled about the situation, for example, lots of them thought that Saddam was connected with 9/11. Taking down Iraq was strategic goal of Israel.
It seems to me that people that are so easily mislead should take part in no decision at all. As I said somewhere else, being dumb is no excuse.
distic
1yr ago
Bernie Sanders politics would be center right in France. There is a french guy I know that was supporting Bernie Sanders in the US and François Fillon (the mainstream right wing candidate in 2017) in France...
distic
1yr ago
You are right, I claimed more than I intended. I would say that basic word-based reddit censorship, like censoring the word "nigger" or even the so-called (((echo))) has not really harmed the debate, even if it gives place to ridiculous cases like on /r/themotte.
There are other cases where reddit censorship is worse than that, like website-level rules against "transphobia". Those rules are very bad in my opinion, however they are nothing close to the Russian system of censorship. It is still possible to express opinion against transgender identity in most western countries, mainly because people can speak somewhere else.
distic
10mo ago
It's not a democracy/dictatorship question. It's about imperialistic leaders that only respect strength. They see any concession as a sign of weakness. There are leaders like that in democracies too, even though it's rarer and they are less dangerous because their powers are limited.
distic
6mo ago
It's pretty hypocritical because antisemitism is a major driver of Zionism. When Jews have to flee, they go to Israel. Obviously those antisemits don't care about Palestine (when have they be interested about dead arabs anyway?)
distic
1yr ago
I'm not sure you get it. I do not think the important part of it is about "making everybody else live according to my principle". Most people do not care that much about what others do. It's more that my freedom to live some kind of life enters in conflict with the freedom of someone else. For example, if someone wants to live without ever hearing "nigger", this person has to enforce a ban on the word. The person might not really care about what people do everywhere where they aren't, they just don't want to hear it. But the only reasonable way to enforce the "don't say nigger to me" rule is to find allies that do not want to hear it either and to ban it almost everywhere.
You may reply that it is not the same kind of freedom, as the freedom to say something is a freedom to act, while the freedom not to hear something is a freedom to a feeling or a non-feeling. But what about rape? The rapist is the actor, the victim is just feeling something. Or what about smoking in restaurants? A rape acts on the body of the unwilling victim, but so does the word "nigger" with the ears, and so does the smoke with the nose. Politics is often about finding practical compromises between opposed freedom.
If free speech is usually preferred to censorship, it is because without it, some truths cannot be said; that the government can start to live in a fantasy world where everything he does is wonderful. Such a government is obviously doomed. So it has been decided wisely that this should not happen. But it means that as long as every truth can still be said, there is no actual danger with censorship. A ban on the word "nigger" is not dangerous, as it does not change your ability to say any truth. I think that a ban that forbids the use of the word "nigger" as a quote of someone else's words is completely stupid, but it is not dangerous as long as there is some other way to speak, as ridiculous as it might be (like "n-word").
Then, there is the usual argument: if we ban "nigger", they will want us to reduce freedom of speech even further : this is the slippery slope fallacy. What about "if they can say nigger, they will soon try to kill black people"? History proves that limiting freedom of speech can lead to general censorship, but it also prove that racial insults can lead to mass murder. Is limited freedom of speech a worse result than a mass murder? Even if you think that a limited freedom of speech would eventually lead to mass murder, you have to agree that it works both ways: mass murder are a very good way to destroy freedom of speech.
distic
1yr ago
Did you steelman the case for some censorship, though? What your teachers said seems to be a slippery slope fallacy. For exemple, "authauritarians will put people in prisons, and they will start with criminals, so we should have no prison at all".
distic
5mo ago
A ceasefire would accomplish a lot. For example, you can move a patient from hospital A to hospital B without fearing for his life, and perhaps he needs to be there now. You can leave your house if you feel it is dangerous to stay there, without being shot.
Israel don't want a ceasefire because Israel has an army of reservists. Those reservists can't be used forever, it cannot last more than a few months.
Moreover, I wonder what you think can be achieved without a ceasefire. Assume Israel kills all Hamas members, there are still a huge number of people who have lost someone (a child, a parent, an aunt...) and who will hate Israel forever.
distic
6mo ago
Well, it wasn't clear from my comment but the brutality and the settlements are not necessary for Israel to exist, so they aren't justified at all. I mean, if you are searching for a peaceful solution and not to justify your own crimes.
distic
6mo ago
I don't think so. I agree that the local government has mire physical power, but its incentives are quite different. The US government has to let americans believe that it acts in their interests. China does not care as much
distic
6mo ago
I have no sympathy for the terrorists, but are you sure Israel would have let them become richer? Sometimes they are targeting civilian infrastructures like power plants, it does not help when you try to build a richer country. A rich enemy is more dangerous, it's a risk Israel is perhaps not ready to take.
distic
10mo ago
When you say that "the jews" are responsible for something, it's a requirement that at least a majority of them were wanting for it to happen.
distic
10mo ago
The problem with your theory is that the american jews have not really been in favor of the war:
https://forward.com/news/1797/poll-70-of-jews-oppose-iraq-war/
distic
10mo ago
US foreign policy is somewhere between loosely controlled by elections (Democrats and Republicans differed in the 2010s over our our approach to Iran, for example.) and not at all.
Sure, because Americans do not care. If it did matter to them, it would be controlled by elections. But in this particular case it somewhat mattered to them, yet they agreed with the government.
distic
1yr ago
Some people have done it for millenia, but it doesn't mean that most have. Actually, if you take account of those who died as children, most people ever born have never got any children. You are the result of those who chose to have children, but it does not mean that most people have done it in the past.
distic
1yr ago
But it's both more productive for American interests and much easier given the general character of Russia to just push NATO east, keep things contentious, and let nature take its course.
I agree, but not completely. East Europe did want to join NATO because they felt threatened by Russia. And they did not just imagine this threat, Russia has been very aggressive toward its neighbors for years. Think about Georgia and Moldova. It has also supported dictatorships and corrupt regimes eg in Belarus and in Ukraine. The US did not have much to do for it to happen, east european countries were actively pursuing NATO membership. On the other side, the fact that NATO was threatening Russia by expanding east is mainly bullshit. I'm pretty sure the US were able to nuke Russia from Turkey during the cold war, they never needed Estonia for that. And worse, now that baltic countries are in NATO, the US certainly do not need Ukraine to threaten Russia. Having NATO in east Europe is only a threat to Russia if you think Russia has a right to invade its neighbors. It does not mean that US were interested in making friends with Russia anyway. They never liked that Europe was buying Russian gas and having business with them. Perhaps they should have tried harder, because in the long run it might be in their interests (so that they do not confront both China and Russia at the same time), but I'm not sure it would have worked anyway.
distic
2mo ago
I like your pragmatism. There is a related argument: once there is democracy, the opposition candidate policy doesn't matter much, because you can choose another one if you want to.
distic
7mo ago
I'm not sure I understand. First message, you say that negociating power would be better for workers if there were less skilled workers and more factories and you give an example.
Then I proved the negociating power would not be better in this situation. Nothing about what it should or should not be there.
Then, you reply that it's true, but there are better things to do than to protect unions in this situation.
To that I reply that you might be right, but it has nothing to do with my concern that the first message I replied to was based on a false hypothesis.
Now you tell me that it's about the negociating power as it is, and I almost agree: it's about the negociating power as it would be, if we changed the situation. But you still did not answer my concern?
distic
7mo ago
I agree, it would not be an economical problem. However it seems to me it is a problem with your argument: the negociating power of the workers has not increased because there is no need for them.
distic
7mo ago
But the second situation is not even possible, you cannot have a factory without any workers...
distic
7mo ago
When did I say I have a better theory? I just said one day it might be replaced by something else.
distic
7mo ago
Authority argument are bad arguments, especially when they are about yourself.
A lot of theories (like quantum physics and evolution theory) derive from experiments. How does that make them non-theories? And because they are theories, they might be replaced by something better one day. However, the fact they explain will remain the same (excepted if we prove they were illusory). Things like that occured when subjective theory of value replaced objective theory of value, or when Einstein replaced Galileo.
But some specialist are unable to see the difference between the theory they learned and the fact it's supposed to explain. Most of the time they are the last ones supporting the old theory when everyone has moved on.
I will comply, but should I really report someone that is arguing like that? It seems to me that he broke no rule apart from those of logic.
More options
Context Copy link