Live data from Hacker News

Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

edwardsnowden.substack.com

61–70 of 266 posts

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#61
post #41

You do not extend tolerance to those who would deny your humanity. Want to know how to fight back against authoritarianism? Look to the folks who've been fighting against racism for (literally) hundreds of years. Racism in the US is just fascism that hasn't hit white people yet.

> You do not extend tolerance to those who would deny your humanity.

Probably a bad ethos to harbour, one that I imagine quickly rationalizes violent behavior.

And I think we're all fortunate that in the US there is no prevailing force denying any specific race of their humanity. Is there scar tissue from the past? Certainly.

As Snowden states "freedom is a direction" and we've certainly moved in the right direction over the past 30 years.

> Racism in the US is just fascism that hasn't hit white people yet.

Odd foreshadowing, but let's hope that true fascism never metastasizes in the US.

I am curious as to who you believe is currently denying your /others humanity in the US?

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#62
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can still do that in any society. Even though it's illegal, you can run a red light or cheat on your taxes By that logic, there is no such thing as restriction of freedom, as it assumes even someone's ability to jail you does not restrict your freedom in any way. People in jail are free as a corollary. How is this not absurd? It only makes sense if you hate freedom and want to argue against it to people low on r…

I'm arguing against the particular definition of freedom given, not against freedom itself.

Freedom is indeed the ability to make your own choices, but you must not understand it in a strictly technical context, more like a social/legal one. It simply isn't viable to physically prevent every action society considers you not free to take, so the restriction of freedom comes in the form of later punishment, it doesn't magically stop being restriction of freedom just because technical possibility is still there.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you not like the question so you avoided it by asking one of your own instead, or is something I'm not familiar with going on?

An action has an undesirable consequence, does this mean it is impossible to perform? The question isn't whether we are free under all circumstances, but whether we are free now.

I agree that lack of freedom always exists simultaneously at some level, but at the specific level posed in the question are you free?

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#64
it is my belief that market forces, democratic decline, and a toxic obsession with "national security" — a euphemism for state supremacy — are drawing the US and China to meet in the middle: a common extreme.

Amen brother.

I realized that National Security is all about US Gov security & US Gov partner's security & major campaign donor security and that's about it.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#65
post #56

[flagged]

So... is Snowden on the right or left? Think carefully before you answer.

If he's on the left, why are you responding negatively to his concern for cancel culture by attacking the right? If he's on the right, then perhaps there is more cancelling on the right than you want to admit?

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#66
post #41

You do not extend tolerance to those who would deny your humanity. Want to know how to fight back against authoritarianism? Look to the folks who've been fighting against racism for (literally) hundreds of years. Racism in the US is just fascism that hasn't hit white people yet.

>You do not extend tolerance to those who would deny your humanity. Straight outta Mein Kampf

Not quite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#67
Perhaps there is some definition of freedom in mathematical terms in which the total scope of decision-making autonomy is maximized over all citizens? The barbarian example would yield a low tally, as the leaders of a hoard are "free," but their subordinates have little decision-making capacity. In terms of the limitations of personal freedoms, the boundary might lie where the diminishment of others' freedoms exceeds the diminishment of one's own if restrained. (E.g. killing someone eliminates all of their future decisions, but preventing a murder eliminates only one decision for the potential murderer?)

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#68
> building out a similar technological and political infrastructure, using similar the justifications of countering terrorism, misinformation, sedition, and subjective “social harms.”

FWIW, this seems to be a common thread in many countries apart from China and the US. “Sedition”, for example, has become the stick to use for any kind of dissent uttered in India over the last few years (a lot more so compared to before).

> rather, it is my belief that market forces, democratic decline, and a toxic obsession with “national security”—a euphemism for state supremacy—are drawing the US and China to meet in the middle: a common extreme. A consensus-challenging internet is perceived by both governments as a threat to central authority, and the pervasive surveillance and speech restrictions they’ve begun to mutually embrace will produce an authoritarian center of gravity that over time will compress every aspect of individual and national political differences until little distance remains.

Again, please add India to this list. It would take a lot to detail out how things are in the country. So let me share one recent set of incidents in a major city (where Google has its largest offices). Police, without the backing of any law or specific authorization, were stopping people on the streets and asking them to unlock their phones and show their WhatsApp chats so that the police could read and see if the person was involved in transacting ganja (marijuana/weed).

But such things go on without the courts batting an eye or punishing the abuse of power with serious consequences.

I’ve kinda lost faith in democracies and the claims of checks and balances with the executive, legislature and judiciary. Power corrupts all of them equally, and they all side with each other rather than with the people who they took an oath to serve.

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#69
post #41

You do not extend tolerance to those who would deny your humanity. Want to know how to fight back against authoritarianism? Look to the folks who've been fighting against racism for (literally) hundreds of years. Racism in the US is just fascism that hasn't hit white people yet.

"You do not extend tolerance to those who would deny your humanity."

And this is how fascism starts

Re: Freedom is not a goal, but a direction

#70
post #41

You do not extend tolerance to those who would deny your humanity. Want to know how to fight back against authoritarianism? Look to the folks who've been fighting against racism for (literally) hundreds of years. Racism in the US is just fascism that hasn't hit white people yet.

>You do not extend tolerance to those who would deny your humanity. Straight outta Mein Kampf

Update: I misspoke. Hitler absolutely accused Jews of treating Christian Germans of being lesser than themselves while arguing that Germans like himself were superior to everyone and everyone else was subhuman.

-------

Have you actually read Mein Kampf?

Hitler never claimed the Jews were denying his humanity nor had German Jews ever denied the humanity of Christian Jews.

Hitler on the other hand did indeed deny the humanity of German Jews. Perhaps you heard about how that turned out.

Post reply on HN