31–40 of 299 posts
The article, and its data, is almost specifically about actual authoritarian regimes and actual restriction of speech by governments against citizens. But I predict this thread will very quickly nose dive into "Twitter banned me for saying COVID is a hoax and something something first amendment."
> The level of democracy enjoyed by the average citizen around the world in 2021 has regressed to 1989 levels Sounds ominously like the iron curtain is falling back into place, this time more dispersed, not just concentrated in the Soviet bloc. > 70 percent of the global population lives under dictatorships, according to VDem’s data. That’s a rise of 20 percent over the past decade. That's pretty disconcerting. Witho…
It lines up with the Corruption Perception Index: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Map_of_c... Judging from this map alone, one would logically conclude that Homo Sapiens is a pretty corrupt species. The average human being lives in a corrupt dictatorship.
> The level of democracy enjoyed by the average citizen around the world in 2021 has regressed to 1989 levels Sounds ominously like the iron curtain is falling back into place, this time more dispersed, not just concentrated in the Soviet bloc. > 70 percent of the global population lives under dictatorships, according to VDem’s data. That’s a rise of 20 percent over the past decade. That's pretty disconcerting. Witho…
It lines up with the Corruption Perception Index: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Map_of_c... Judging from this map alone, one would logically conclude that Homo Sapiens is a pretty corrupt species. The average human being lives in a corrupt dictatorship.
To be fair I can't tell if large German corporations and politicians are corrupt or instead lack direction, are criminal, or incompetent and are funded by mandatory spending by the government. See Brandenburg, Dieselgate, Gazprom Germania for the tip of the iceberg.
Cancel culture, de-platforming, algorithmic dampening, account mislabelling, brigading on-platform, account suspension and deletion - all of these things are happening in the Western world, on US platforms. I used to have sympathy with the the argument that 'private company's can do what they like', especially when they banned people I don't like but I have come to realise that this can be understood as the outsourcing of the suppression of free expression to the private sector. The fight for freedom of expression is here, not Myanmar
Right, Russia bans independent media, while those in the free EU can go read https://www.rt.com ... oh yaa, the EU blocks that web site.
"I find people who don't think exactly like me to be intolerable" is the bread and butter for controlling a population. People look at the past and think to themselves "those people in the past were wrong, that's why the one acceptable way to think being enforced with power was immoral, on the other hand, my opinions are right, so the ends justify the means". Intolerance is intolerance, regardless of how morally just…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
Another of the less well-known paradoxes is the paradox of democracy, or more precisely, of majority-rule; i.e. the possibility that the majority may decide that a tyrant should rule. That Plato’s criticism of democracy can be interpreted in the way sketched here, and that the principle of majority-rule may lead to self-contradictions, was first suggested, as far as I know, by Leonard Nelson (cp. note 25 (2) to this chapter).
I do not think, however, that Nelson, who, in spite of his passionate humanitarianism and his ardent fight for freedom, adopted much of Plato’s political theory, and especially Plato’s principle of leadership, was aware of the fact that analogous arguments can be raised against all the different particular forms of the theory of sovereignty.
All these paradoxes can easily be avoided if we frame our political demands in the way suggested in section ii of this chapter, or perhaps in some such manner as this. We demand a government that rules according to the principles of equalitarianism and protectionism; that tolerates all who are prepared to reciprocate, i.e. who are tolerant; that is controlled by, and accountable to, the public. And we may add that some form of majority vote, together with institutions for keeping the public well informed, is the best, though not infallible, means of controlling such a government. (No infallible means exist.)"
"I find people who don't think exactly like me to be intolerable" is the bread and butter for controlling a population. People look at the past and think to themselves "those people in the past were wrong, that's why the one acceptable way to think being enforced with power was immoral, on the other hand, my opinions are right, so the ends justify the means". Intolerance is intolerance, regardless of how morally just…
The article, and its data, is almost specifically about actual authoritarian regimes and actual restriction of speech by governments against citizens. But I predict this thread will very quickly nose dive into "Twitter banned me for saying COVID is a hoax and something something first amendment."
I do think that twitter and the other walled gardens are public fora and people should have some free speech rights there. That are different from whatever Twitter decides at their discretion.