Comment by lbrito 5 days ago
You don't understand.
Its different: _they_ were doing it. The Bad Guys. Now _we_, the Good Guys, are doing it. Therefore, the thing itself is no longer Bad - it is Good.
The comment above was ironic. I have to specify because supposedly intelligent people really think that way: https://x.com/garrytan/status/1963310592615485955
California made open carry illegal when the Black Panthers started doing legal street marches with big guns strapped to their backs. It seems one of the best ways to make the right wing do something you want is to expose them to their own policies.
In Florida, a surgeon refused to administer anesthetic to Republicans under the law intended to made it legal to deny abortions, since it said it was legal for any medical professional to deny any healthcare on religious or moral grounds. Not really — unfortunately that was a hoax screenshot, photoshopped. But it would make them repeal that law post–haste.
Unfortunately this doesn't work with the modern right wing. Admitting you are wrong is a mortal sin, instead you invent reasons why it's not okay when someone else does it. As an example, just about every statement the administration has made regarding the murders ICE keeps committing.
Uno reverse doesn't work here.
In extreme cases: "I’m not licking the boot. It’s my boot. I voted for it. I’m the one stomping…" [0]
People imagine that they are part of the in-group, and not the out-group that gets the boot for exercising basic rights that the in-group gets. And perhaps they are, if they have enough money and power. But ultimately most of these people know that they are not in power but that as long as they see the boot stomping on others, and they can imagine a boundary that keeps them in the in-group (skin color, political ideology, gender, etc.), they approve as long as that group boundary is clear.
Now, when that boundary begins to blur, and people understand that the person getting the boot could be themselves, then attitudes start to change.
[0] https://bsky.app/profile/joshuaeakle.com/post/3mdfsnpy57k26
What you're describing here (ironically) is unironically the basis for Western political thought.
What I'm referring to here is idealism [1]. Whether it's European colonial powers or the US, the basis for foreign intervention is, quite simply, that we are the Good Guys. Why? Because we're the Good Guys. Even slavery was justified in Christianity by converting the heathen and saving their immortal souls, a fundamentally idealistic argument.
What's the alternative? Materialism [2], the premise of which is that there is not anything metaphysical that defines "goodness". Rather, you are the product of your material circumstances. There is a constant feedback loop if you affecting your material surroundsina and those surroundings affect you.
This has been proven wrong again and again. My grandparents were subsistence farmers. They had much less material wealth than any working class American and the vast majority of unhoused Americans. Yet, I can assure you that back then they were much more satisfied with life than the vast majority of working class and unhoused americans today. Second point, no amount of material wealth can compensate for severe mental illness. When people have severe mental illness, medical interventions must be performed against their diminished "free will." For those of you of American descent ask your parents or grand parents how their grand parents lived. I am certain you will be shocked at their extreme poverty and general hopefulness. Conclusion: once basic needs are met, the perception of "material" is more important than the material.
> This has been proven wrong again and again
[does not offer evidence]
> Yet, I can assure you ... they were much more satisfied with life than the vast majority of working class and unhoused americans today
How do you know this? How is this convincing to this audience?
> no amount of material wealth can compensate for severe mental illness
Are you asserting that mental illness occurred at lower rates in the past?
> I am certain you will be shocked at their extreme poverty and general hopefulness
There is no shortage of writing from the Great Depression expressing great hopelessness. The generation was popularly called the Lost Generation for decades by writers of the time.
We cannot conclusively know the overall happiness level of humanity at any time before the Industrial Revolution. But we can use general proxies, such as starvation rates, violent deaths, and child mortality. Those metrics have, by all knowable measures, improved by an order of magnitude after the Industrial Revolution when compared to all previous history.
I believe that happiness comes from being content, at least as a basis.
As long as person's basic needs are met and they are covered in the case of an emergency (for example, not going bankrupt because of cancer) they can be happy.
The barrier though is other people who make you unhappy. Your friends or family can cause you to compare your wealth to others.
The news and politicians can make you feel unhappy by telling you things are worse than they used to be and/or theyre getting worse.
Media can show you things you don't have and worse make you feel as though you would be happier, more excited, or more relaxed if you had these things.
Even though it's possible to ignore this, it's extremely difficult. We aren't as strong as we think when it comes to negative emotions.
My great grandparents could buy enough land to feed themselves for the equivalent of a few months salary. And they could live in whatever size building they wanted on it. Some amount of agency is a requirement for happiness, and when you have it you can be satisfied living under a rock.
It's one thing to analyze the world with this lens, which is perfectly fine, as long as it's part of a bigger analysis. But materialist views have never stopped the boot. Materialist political ideology has produced some of the finest jack boots history has seen.
i personally find presenting a black and white "it's either one way or the other" perspective to be problematic.
yes, materialism and cause and effect etc. etc. agreed on that. it is a thing. interestingly though, as people sit static and just work on becoming more aware of that feedback loop you mentioned it can lead to people trying to not be so much of an arsehole -- through refraining from doing a thing -- because they can see their part in causing things to happen in the world. and that's not just limited to immediate surroundings. i know that i affect everything with every action i do (or do not do).
idealism becomes useful at that point. it can provide people with a set of loose guidelines on how to "not be an arsehole" aka how to not affect everything in a way that's going to cause problems.
the problems come when people do idealism without being aware of that materialistic feedback loop. they're usually doing it out of rule based dogma based on tribalism. sometimes it's "we're better than you are" or sometimes it's "outsiders are not welcome".
caveat: this is all just my personal experience, but i think it would scale if enough people became aware that their actions matter and have profound consequences, so try to not be an arsehole to anyone today
> What you're describing here (ironically) is unironically the basis for Western political thought.
It's not just "western" political thought if such a thing even exists. It's political thought.
For example, Japan's stated goal in ww2 was to liberate asia from european invaders. They portrayed themselves as the good guys. The liberators. That's true for every empire and war in history, "western" or "eastern" or "northern" or "southern". It was always the self-proclaimed "good guys" fighting self-proclaimed "good guys". The winner gets to keep the "good guy" handle while the loser gets assigned the "bad guy" handle.
Had japan won ww2, that's how history would have taught ww2. Instead, japan lost and the US won and hence we get to claim to be the good guys while japan does not.
Whilst either side can claim to be "good guys", it's important to look at the behaviours exhibited. Obviously, Germany had the concentration camps and Japan brutally tortured prisoners of war, so it does seem quite clear that one side had more respect for human dignity than the other. However, the U.S. did round up Japanese people, but it hardly compares to the atrocities of the Nazis.
Nowadays however, we have the USA rounding up non-white people and putting them in brutal concentration camps (it's not a prison if there's no due process) whilst openly murdering opposition in the streets whilst Germany is acting as a trusted and stable partner. It's not the country, but the monsters that may be put in charge by a misled population.
> Obviously, Germany had the concentration camps and Japan brutally tortured prisoners of war
And the "good guys" firebombed tens of millions innocent civilians and nuked cities. Not to mention the mass rapes, starvation, etc.
> However, the U.S. did round up Japanese people, but it hardly compares to the atrocities of the Nazis.
You are right. The nazis never nuked anyone.
>And the "good guys" firebombed tens of millions innocent civilians and nuked cities. Not to mention the mass rapes, starvation, etc.
This is factually true. It is bizarre how this is downvoted. Its like people can't live in a world where the victors were less than perfect, or that acknowledging war crimes from one party is equivalent to saying the other parties are good.
People even invented a fashionable buzzword for this evil way of thinking: whataboutism.
>I have to specify because supposedly intelligent people really think that way
It is the right way to think (with caveats).
Basically, no matter which way you put it, people need some form of government (or more abstractly a state that has authority over people with those people having reduced set of freedoms compared to anarchy). Human nature doesn't bode well with long term planning. For example, with unrestricted capitalism, you have a price on human labor hours that doesn't account for the value of human life - i.e as long as someone can do the job, it doesn't matter what their health is at the end of the job as long as they are replaceable, as this is the most optimal in terms of labor spending. So you need people to collectively form an entity with power of enforcement that is agreed upon by everyone, so that the entity can step in and take action.
Therefore, the goal shouldn't be to restrict the entities power. Doing so is essentially very selfish, which is on par with any libertarian/conservative mindset - as history shows, everyone on the right wing who was crying about censorship on social media for social/political issues has no problem when their side censors it, and broadly oversteps in their alloted power, ignoring the law.
The goal should be to determine whether or not the restricted access makes sense given the current status of the country, and the most importantly, ensuring that the state follows the code of law before anything else. I.e on a very broad sense, instead of arguing who is right and who is wrong, argue what is the metric by which you can get the answer, and then codify it as law.
In a lot of cases, censorship makes sense. And as with any rule, there is going to be some cases where its applied and the outcome is worse than if it wasn't applied. That should be acceptable. In the end, friction in the process still means that things are moving forward, but it also prevents much worse effects if things start moving backwards. Removing that friction means you can go backwards very quickly, like US has done.
Wow. I thought this was going to be one of those false comparisons, you know, like when someone says censoring conspiracy theories is the same thing as censoring science. But no — it's mass surveillance on both sides. He says mass surveillance is good when the US does it and bad when China does it. Wtf
Wouldn't it be awesome if that X post was satire? Wishful thinking ...
You can also reverse it.
(Western) Internet was mostly censorship free, unlike places like Iran, China and the like. Things were removed only if outright illegan, and then just because of a court order.
Then about ten years ago things changed.
ISIS videos about the Syrian revolution removed from Youtube because they were radicalizing people.
Conspiracy theories about COVID purged because they were dangerous.
Posts against Woke ideals down-ranked, purged or the people posting themselves canceled.
"Be careful, once the tables turn, it will be your turn" some people said.
Guess what, the tables turned, and the result is ugly.
> Then about ten years ago things changed.
No, they didn't.
We had McCarthy in the 50s. We had Focus on the Family and the Catholic League getting shows canceled. The Simpsons had a public feud with George Bush Sr.
Cancel culture long predates the internet. Hell, it predates humans; plenty of other species kick antisocial members out of group gatherings.
Yes they did. I am talking about the Internet.
It used to be that anybody could post anything on the Internet. If it was something illegal sooner or later the state FBI/a Judge/Whatever would come for you, but it was a matter between you and the law. Your Internet provider, your hosting provider, etc. couldn't care less because they were not involved in your activity, in the same way that the post office is not to blame if you send an explosive letter using their service.
That's Section 230. While it's an USA-specific law it was in the spirit followed also in most of the other Western countries.
> It used to be that anybody could post anything on the Internet.
This was never the case. We had occasional law enforcement contact back in the 90s when I ran a gaming vBulletin board in high school. Your IP was trivially traced to a physical landline location and VPNs were in their infancy, and Facebook.com didn't get HTTPS by default until well into the 2000s (after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firesheep).
Section 230 protects the ISPs and websites from liability, not the posters. It made it safer to host potentially actionable user-generated speech at scale, not harder.
> Section 230 protects the ISPs and websites from liability, not the posters.
I know. That's not what I am complaining about.
I am not an anarchist. I am fine with enforcement asking an ISP, a website, a forum, whatever to remove content because it breaks some law.
What I am complaining about is: it used to be that a platform would let you use it as you saw fit. If you were doing something illegal sooner or later law enforcement would come after you but then the platform wouldn't care much because it was YOUR fault not theirs.
The exception to this was very high level. e.g. phpBB forums with moderators. But those where not platform. They were quite small in size. I consided something like Youtube closer to an ISP or a Registar than a bulletin board. You cannot really escape them.
It used to be that those would only act after the fact (as you said). Only recently (past 10 years) they started to proactively censor their content. It is not completely their fault, they have been pressured to do so, but still they have.
Taking away people's guns is unamerican, unless you're taking them away from someone I consider to be unamerican, like an immigrant or a liberal; in that case, it's for the good of America that we take away their guns, and the people who wrote the constitution never intended for it to apply to all people the way it says, but only white people and non-white people those white people find to be convenient allies for the time being.