Cancel cultute hypocrisy

Post Reply New Topic

Welcome to a universe of nothing.

What is the matter ... can you not tolerate dissent?

To qualify as dissent, you'd have offer a counter argument, rather then just regurgitating the same line.

In your opinion, which is subjective.

I do actually kind of agree, hence my mention of exploitation by the top 5%, but I think freedom of information is being used to falsely maintain this just as much as censorship is.

If there's no obligation to tell the truth, why not simply control people with lies?

What's missing is accountability.

Both for those in power and those challenging the status quo. There's lots of BS on both sides and opening things up further will only add to that. Yes there are nuggets of truth in there but it would be a lot easier to find them if there were less white noise.

But then we're back into the debate about how we filter out the nonsense while retaining the good stuff. And that seems to revolve almost entirely around what each individual believes to be true, and therefore valid, and what they believe to be false and therefore deserving of censorship.

As I say, your view is subjective. So is mine. So is everybody else's.

How'd you work round that? Complete freedom of speech is likely to result in an even greater deluge of dangerous, 'talking head' garbage - not a single, obvious, glowing beacon of truth.

Nothing to work around. It's up to individuals to disseminate what's garbage and what's not. You're advocating for state censorship. I find that frightening.

Democratic society can't model diversity and inclusion by restricting differences and excluding / cancelling ideas.

It's that simple.

I know you do, and I understand that. Though I notice you offer no remedy for the problems a complete lack of censorship would create, both at an individual level and en masse.

Absolute freedom of speech is just as terrifying as censorship, which is why it doesn't exist anywhere in the world as far as I'm aware. Also, why confine this to the State? Other organisations and individuals are equally capable of both controlling information and corrupting it. You seem to have some inherent bias there?

I think you're putting too much emphasis on direct state control, when in practice most control in the West is now indirect. Why show your hand by bullying the people (which is very obvious) when you can instead coerce them into willing obedience through more subtle intervention?

As Goebbels once famously said, "Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will". That's the current situation in the U.S.A. The loudest critics of Government are generally those who, ironically, think the problems will be solved by giving Government and big business more power to do as they please. This is the whole irony of Trump, elected on an anti-establishment ticket, gearing his whole economic strategy around making the rich elite richer. Yes, he lied. But there's no accountability and no-one wants to admit they've been suckered, do they? So instead they double down.

Absolute free speech makes it much easier to spread misleading nonsense without repercussions. And that's the paradox. Censorship = control, lack of censorship = complete lack of accountability for false information. Both are equally dangerous and in the West we're now largely driven by the latter, because it's more subtle and works better.

In Communist theory this division is summarised by Althusser as RSAs and ISAs. Repressive State Apparatuses being tools of force - typically the Armed Forces, Police and the Courts, while Ideological State Apparatuses are things which shape us indirectly, seemingly at random: church, school, employment, the media. But how much of that is really accidental?

For example, to what extent are we taught just enough to be good workers, while also being taught to be obedient and subservient and not to think for ourselves too much? Why are we continually encouraged to get into debt? Why is it normal to talk about the value of everything in financial terms, rather than discussing the physical and emotional impact of changes on human beings? Why are there huge swathes of debate which are simply blanked off in the media - ideas which never get discussed? To what extent do those in control rig the deck by controlling the narrative so only a small proportion of options ever get discussed? Why are news stories always conveniently simple and black-and-white, when we all know the truth never is?

None of that is censorship, it's manipulation, and sometimes outright lies. And a lack of proper accountability makes that easier to do, not harder.

My take - this is what we get in lieu of actually solving the problems that has both 'camps' out complaining and getting each other riled.

It makes me wonder if people were slugging it out with people they didn't like while the Titanic was sinking. Maybe if it were sinking over decades and they were all stuck out to sea with each other that long it might have been the case.

So giving those in authority carte blanche to say what they like - whether it's true or not, and knowing that it will be entirely self-serving - will lead to greater democracy?

That's more than a little naive, don't you think?

A lack of sensible 'policing' can stifle critical thinking just as effectively as overly draconian censorship.

Let's take an obvious example. This is done for dramatic emphasis NOT as a personal attack, btw. Let's say you have information that could harm someone important. They could stifle you through censorship, maybe even lock you up, but that risks a backlash which could attract further sympathy for your cause. Or they could spread the rumour, "Isabella Linton is a child abuser" and let the screaming mob do the rest. One is an abuse of control, the other is an abuse of freedom of speech. Both are equally bad.

The issue here is, whatever one does to cancel out one set of unpleasant risks automatically opens up an equally unpleasant set of risks on the other side.

Too much freedom = too much opportunity for abuse, but too much control = too much opportunity for abuse.

Which is precisely why most Western democracies operate some level of direct censorship, and there's also normally a much bigger set of social expectations and values that are unwritten and, depending on your point of view, might be beneficial or repressive. To what extent the latter is operating by mutual consent or deliberately manipulated for financial and political ends is unclear (which, of course, it would be).

Isabella was making a general statement about tolerance of different ideas, I believe.

I doubt she believes in governments running amok and denying people rights—like Trump sought to do with the press.

The US is one of the least censorious nations in the world—yet Trump sought to change that and make us similar to a banana republic.

It doesn't matter. My whole point here is, whatever you do, you end up with an equal set of pros and cons. If you adjust to increase the positives one way, that simply increases the negatives on the other side as well.

That's why it's a paradox. There is no straightforward, binary, clear-cut answer. Every western democracy operates some form of compromise. Some work better than others and then you're into whether that's because the policies are wrong or the implementation.

What I object to here is the simplistic argument that censorship is bad and freedom of speech is good, when there's no shortage of examples why that's not true. Let's interrupt your TV church service with some hardcore porn. Maybe cut some horror movie gore into a kids show. And that's just for starters.

The much bigger and more serious issue here is the deliberate manipulation of the media and social organisations to rig society in a way that benefits only a very select few.

Then of course we have the lack of accountability that permits keyboard warriors across the globe to make up any old s**t they feel like, which in turn disrupts democracy by taking attention away from real, actual, serious problems.

Blanket cynicism is perhaps the greatest threat to democracy of them all. But no no, let's prioritise every tinfoil hat wearing nutjob having their say, even if it's gibberish.

Freedom of speech is imperfect, and it has inherent dangers. I understand that. Regardless, I'd rather live in a society which values tolerance, individualism, open education, critical thinking, evaluation, reason, debate, social utility, and civil responsibility, than a state which sanctions expression, cancels individuals, restricts information, or indoctrinates public morality.

"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties."
John Milton, 1644

In a democracy, the tinfoil hat wearers will almost always be drowned out by the more sensical folks.

In an autocracy, the tinfoil hat wearers frequently are the leaders; thus, the tinfoil ideology is normalized. This happened both under Nazism and Communism.

By the way, I am not a right-winger. I don’t believe in all of the precepts of the “woke” philosophy—though I believe in some of it.
My views are pretty much aligned towards European Social Democracy.

I highly recommend reading 'Manufacturing Consent ' if they want to understand how the media operates. They carry water for the political establishment because they are paid handsomely to do so. If they actually develop a condcience and start practicing real journslism, they get the boot.

Red_Kross, you talk about the need to weed out disinformation, when a great percentage of alleged legimate new sources peddle disinformation 24/7. If you only watched MSNBC, you'd be entirely ignorant on the Syrian conflict. We are lied to constantly and inundated with pro-war propaganda.

The only antidote to hate speech or disinformation is more speech. That, and educating the public to understand the mechanics of an oligarchy.

Perfect!

We just keep rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic every few years. Sadly, continuing to play this game only strengthens the disease that gave us Trump. And we are strengthening that disease at a frightening pace right now.