I immediately thought about sovereign citizens too. They are what happens when basedness meets with absolute idiocy.

It gave them the excuse to build their own platforms in which their ideas could spread uncontested and at the same time made them more alluring to the masses because “forbidden” knowledge is so alluring to humans that perhaps the most famous myth in history is about how our species lost the perfect existence because of it.

You cannot make anything forbidden and expect that by doing so it won’t spread because it is forbidden. As long as there is a demand for it it will continue to spread and if the Streisand effect holds it will spread exponentially. This applies to ideas, drugs, guns, and pretty much everything. If the people want it they will get it. Alcohol is the perfect example: we tried to make it illegal and all it did was increase crime, violence and people kept drinking as much if not more than before. Fast forward to today people drink less than ever because they have learned the health effects of it. Give people the tools to tell right from wrong, correct from incorrect instead of trying to bubble wrap their world and then act surprised when they feel betrayed because someone told them there is another point of view (false as it may be). Let them see both point of views and let the very absurdity of the opposite view discredit itself.

If we cannot trust that people can make the correct decisions why then would we insist on democracy?

It’s not about the factuality of the information though, it’s about the subjectivity of the label. Harmful, hateful, etc are not objective measurable labels and so they can be used to shut down any sort of speech. The paternalistic position that we need to protect people from falsehoods or harmful ideas is frankly condescending. Like I said elsewhere if I cannot believe that people are capable of separating truth from fact, then I must also believe that they are fundamentally incapable of making decisions and therefore I need to take away any ability for them to make any kind of significant decision. I will not follow this line of thought in my life or politics, because then who gets to decide who is capable of making decisions? The experts in their ivory towers? The only experts with apodictic knowledge are physicists and mathematicians, everyone else operates on degrees of certainty, they can be wrong. And furthermore who decides who are the experts? This is a return to aristocracy or monarchy, but instead of divine authority it is credentialist.

If we want to stop people from believing stupid shit the solution is not to attempt to bubble wrap their world as it were, but rather to give them the tools to discern good information from bad information.

If I’m to believe that I need to protect people from “bad” ideas and that they are not capable of discerning right from wrong, false from truth, them I will also have to believe that democracy itself is wrong because clearly we cannot allow these monkeys to make any decisions. Now while my heart of hearts might believe this to be true, I do not have apodictic certainty in that and instead I truly believe that education can make people take better decisions and help them discern right from wrong. As such I can never believe in labeling speech as allowed or not allowed, rather I would like to invest my energies into fostering curiosity, truth seeking and knowledge as perhaps the highest human virtues. So instead of burying speech we should be educating kids.

Also X kind of proves my point, the platform is alive but much less relevant than before. This is the bad ideas discrediting themselves in action.

This is about the only good reply because it’s honest. Very based.

Ok I understand that you, like me are a chimp, but we need to try to overcome tribalism as much as we can. By that I mean stop thinking that anyone belongs to the opposite tribe of yours simply because they don’t subscribe to dogmatic political agendas. I’m not taking any side except the side of logic and reasoning. Prohibiting or restricting speech or ideas has never stopped them from spreading or otherwise gaining traction if the ground for them is fertile. So what’s even the point? We used to have the KKK on tv and through the sheer idiocy of their ideas they still failed as a political organization.

Invest your energies on fomenting curiosity and truth seeking in people not on removing “harmful” speech. Those are arbitrary labels that we can apply to anything, as Trump et all are showing.

I don’t know that I believe in that sort of paternalistic attitude what I do know is that Google et al have no business dictating what is or isn’t misinformation. It’s a double edged blade.

People will believe whatever they want to believe, you cannot suppress whatever you believe is misinformation. There are lots of things for which there is no apodictic certainty that gets passed of as fact and no one questions it or calls it misinformation.

Also it’s not that it wasn’t a perfect solution. It’s that it is not a solution at all. It actively made things worse in fact.

People in the streets say crazier shit every day, are you also gonna stop them from saying it? Fuck that man, the audience is the one that needs to learn to be discerning.

Fuck outta here with this fuckhead logic.

This is not a bad thing actually. “Deplatforming” idiots clearly did not stop their ideas from spreading so might as well allow people to say whatever inane shit they want instead of getting them riled up for “censorship”.

I know it’s not real censorship but technicalities hardly matters. What matters is how people feel.

Two decades of “just learn to code bro”, will do that to a profession.

It’s weird that all countries have the same policies if they are so bad. But here’s the fact: the stronger your safety nets, the more difficult do you have to make immigration lest the system collapse. And allowing immigrants that cannot access the safety nets is a sure fire way to increase your crime rate because now you have a underclass that wouldn’t have existed. So yes the US should have laxer immigration policies than other countries, but not full blown open borders. Not unless there is a practical reason to do so, which there isn’t.

I never said it was impossible, I said we need to slow walk it because it can’t be radical, not unless you are willing to commit literal murder. I’d advocate for accelerationism first before I advocate for killing people who oppose you ideologically.

True we have the resources in theory. The problem is that the necessary structural change to do that right now is so great that it can only be done by literally nuking civilization out of existence and starting over again. Seeing as that might not actually be a good option, we need to slow walk it because the other ways have been tried and they don’t end well

And yes I’m exclusionary because everyone else is. I would love to hop on a plane and move to somewhere in Spain right now. But guess what? They don’t make it that easy. That’s what I meant earlier when I said something about everyone being on the same legal framework. I couldn’t find th right words but the gist is that unless every country on earth has open borders then no country on earth should have open borders.

I never said the opposite. But social nets have their limits because resources are not infinite. First we need to make sure the material needs of our people are met before we can help others. I don’t understand how this is a controversial thing to say.

Wow my guy, just wow. Bravo, you’ve turned this into an art.

Then what is it? Because it sure as fuck doesn’t sound right wing but someone just called me right wing because I agree in some points with MAGA. 🤣

Right there it says that there are other measures that led to the reduction in poverty. Here’s my thing, if you increase the minimum wage, don’t change the definition or the line at which someone is considered to be living in poverty, and run a census the next day poverty will appear to have been reduced by a lot because everyone is now making the increased minimum wage yay! However if there’s inflation, in a few more months we might be back to where we were in the first place in real terms, however unless you change the line in which poverty begins, you will still be able to clam that you decreased poverty. Poverty is not about the money someone is making, but rather how much what they make buys.

I’m in favor of social nets but, again, I dont see compelling evidence that raising minimum wage is anything but a placebo.

1. I don’t think that, but I do know that if 1 singe American is having a hard time while we are helping 1 illegal immigrant, then we are doing something wrong and it will breed resentment.

2. You are a bad faith argumenter. I’ve never said science is fake, I’ve said that social science (though it also happens in the natural sciences to a lesser degree) is not really science, not with any degree of certainty as physics etc. here’s a little summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis?wprov=sfti1

but searching in Google Scholar or JSTOR will bring up many many studies about the problem. So when people say “the science backs this” using a social science study that is not replicable, it takes two brain cells to realize that no, there is no science backing such a claim.

3. Yes I also meant farms which are also very often corporations. And that’s what I said in my very first comment, the Trump administration says a lot of things that are right (they say a lot more that are wrong but they are not wrong about everything ), but they use it to serve their interests instead of actually solving the problems. Farmers are the biggest enemies of any of the solutions to many of the problems in America, we should nationalize the whole industry at this point because it cannot exist without government subsidies and yet they use the money to lobby against environmental and immigration reforms. They like the status quo. But if you don’t want to nationalize them we can stop subsidizing them and simply subsidize their wages directly in such a way that they can pay living wages instead of relying on immigrant labor.

But again you are arguing in bad faith and I do not think that you have any coherent ideology that isn’t “oppose everything the other guys do”.

Fascism has an established definition. Hell there’s a literal manifesto

Free open borders doesn’t work unless everyone, literally everyone is working on the same legal framework . This could be good long term project for humanity but as it stands right now now, national divisions matter. You can’t have people that weren’t born here overwhelming our nation and getting aid when our own people are suffering economic hardship. The problem with people like you is that you want everything now, and that’s not possible except through extreme violence and often ends up not solving the problems. I would love to be able to remake the system from the top down, but we know that never ends right.

I don’t think science is bullshit, I think non reroducible experiments are not science. I love science, but the social sciences in the present exist in the same stage of development as medicine was in the Middle Ages. This is a provable fact. Universities need to be centers of knowledge again and not job training centers.

Like someone pointed out, I said corporations are living off the government tit, that’s a fact. I would prefer if the tit was feeding us instead. I think I made it very clear that I’m pro social safety nets.

Exactly. I think government and corporations exist to generate wealth to benefit society. Right now it exists to benefit corporations.