I'm left wing but I despair for the future of the left.
If the right had control of the tech companies it would have removed left content years ago and never blinked or even thought twice about it.
The right never agonises over its own strong decisions, whereas the left, if it takes strong action , wrings its hands in agony about whether it has done the correct thing or not.
That's why in the long run the right will beat the left because it is utterly shameless in taken any action it can to assert power, whilst the left is reluctant to take any strong action.
The left scores a knockdown on the right via social media restriction, but soon enough, the left will offer a hand to help the right back up so they can win the fight.
Your analysis is not useful because no such entities as "the left" and "the right" exist. It's not remotely helpful to lump complex and differentiated phenomena into binary categories so you can attach simple motivations and behaviors to them.
> It's not remotely helpful to lump complex and differentiated phenomena into binary categories so you can attach simple motivations and behaviors to them
It's not "helpful", to the general populace, but it is extremely useful to existing power structures to divide the populace up along various dimensions and then "attach (via sophisticated media narratives) simple motivations and behaviors to them". Advertising and marketing does just this, and it works quite well, and is there not plentiful evidence that at least suggests the same may be happening to some degree in the realm of politics?
When people hear one story, they tend to ask: is this true? When they hear two stories, they tend to ask: which one of these is true? Isn’t this a neat trick? Maybe our whole world is built on it. Any point on which both poles concur is shared story: “uncontroversial, bipartisan consensus.”
Shared story has root privilege. It has no natural enemies and is automatically true. Injecting ideas into it is nontrivial and hence lucrative; this profession is called “PR.”
There is no reason to assume that either pole of the spectrum of conflict, or the middle, or the shared story, is any closer to reality than the single pole of the one-story state.
Dividing the narrative has not answered the old question: is any of this true? Rather, it has… dodged it. Stagecraft!
This is even better than supposing that, since we fought Hitler and Hitler was bad, we must be good. These very basic fallacies, or psychological exploits, are deeply embedded in our political operating systems. Like bugs in code, they are invisible until you look straight at them. Then they are obvious.
The sad thing is that this is exactly how the right sees the actions of the left. and it's even worse, as they (the left) are now winning. Their eyes are not blinking - they don't care about freedom of speech or fair game.
In the long run, both sides start to see this modus operandi as completely normal. Censorship and vengeance to the other side are completely acceptable.
This. We don't have civil discourse anymore...people just yell and call people names. You don't like what the other person says they are a "libtard"...or a "racist". You don't like what they are doing online, get them kicked off or dox them to your friends. Justify online bullying like it's a sport. Now it's escalated to not just banning them from social media...but a coordinated effort to destroy the alternative platform they had.
When did speaking truth to power become "bullying"? And anyway, removing those who spew violent rhetoric is how civility is restored. The fact that the response to Twitter bans is so violent proves somebody needed to be silenced.
> When did speaking truth to power become "bullying"?
It _can_ become bulling when people will arbitrarily claim that the victim of the bullying is the one who "had power" while the mob that got them fired, say, was just "speaking truth". Which maybe they were and maybe they were not.
Not every incident of a bunch of people attacking someone on social media is "bullying", but neither is every incident of such "speaking truth to power", but a lot of the incidents of the former sure do try to pretend to be the latter.
I suspect that you're thinking of a specific set of incidents and that j_walter is thinking of a quite different set of incidents, for what it's worth.
Yes this is mostly my feeling to. A central part of libertarianism seems to be insisting the governments give up power, which is all well and good until someone worse steps in to pick it up.
What is the proper libertarian response to current events? Asking in good faith, honestly curious.
To be fair, I'm curious about what the response would be to BLM riots+politician involvement, MAGA riots+president involvement, and big tech censorship in response.
- Corporations have the right to censor whatever they want. But that's not moral (what they are doing currently). We should abandon these instances and find better ways to communicate - less centralized.
- Store owners (and property owners in general) should be able to defend their property with firepower (or pay for such services) freely, without fear of repercussions. This stands both against BLM and MAGA. Of course, this luxury is not allowed in the current world.
So we have to find find better ways - don't stand in the way of a moving train, but find ways to survive and prosper no matter. We move to greener pastures, find jobs that are better paying with less risks, learn to be adaptive and prepared.
For me personally, this means that I did not move to the USA when I had the chance. I prefer not to work for US companies (especially the SV commie bunch), I don't travel to the USA any more. And I try to be vigilant with regards to the dangers that come from there (and will inevitably become worse, at least in the near future).
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I mostly agree - we can criticize corporations for their current actions from a moral perspective but not a legal one.
To your second point - isn't the U.S. one of the only developed countries where you kind of can do this? I regularly see armed guards in front of private businesses, from Walmarts in the middle of nowhere to dispensaries in downtown SF.
(FWIW I think calling SV tech 'commies' is off the mark - Marx would find little in common with the SV tech industry, I think.)
Yeah, the US is better than many countries with regards of laws that allow you to stand your ground. That's exactly the reason that made me consider moving there. Not any more :-(.
I might have overplayed the 'commie' part a little. Still what I see there is quite in line with the practices of the former Eastern Block - I am from Bulgaria and I had "the chance" to live in a communist society until I was 8. The witch hunting is copied basically 1:1, and also the "witch profile" is surprisingly the same - evil capitalist "pigs", presumably white and presumably racist/nazi.
Spoken like someone that only sees right and left. In fact many people on the "right" were tired of seeing FB and Twitter control so much and they were constantly told it's a private platform so go make your own. They did so, and then those same companies worked in tandem to destroy Parler. Signal and WhatsApp are used to coordinate violent and destructive riots...we don't see anyone trying to take them down. The opinion is they do more good than bad...despite the ability to use them for either purpose.
There are people on the left and right that are power hungry and make decisions only to benefit themselves...however some people actually care about freedoms and fairness. Bad and illegal behavior will happen in any system with freedoms...banning those systems is not the answer.
This is the paradox of tolerance, which says for a tolerant society to remain tolerant, it cannot tolerate intolerance.
Many people need to learn the difference between de-platforming and censorship - in this case Parler is essentially being de-platformed by private businesses who no longer wish to do business with them, which is their right. As a free speech advocate, surely you must accept that that extends to a company of people, be that 1, 1000 or 10000 people, otherwise you're advocating for double-standards (see above). Forcibly compelling businesses (which include sole-traders or individuals) to conduct business with anyone that wants to avail themselves of their product, which is what the EC is advocating, if far more worrisome for free speech.
Moreover, there is nothing stopping the "silenced" organisations and people from creating their own platform. Blocking organisations and individuals from accessing the internet is problematic, but in this situation somewhat ironic. The side cheering the bans (no, not leftist, America doesn't really have left-wing politics) were pushing net neutrality and the internet as a public service while those being de-platforming were adamant that this would be a bad thing.
What makes you think that these platforms are actually taking action for "the left?" Is silicon valley actually a leftist paradise full of leftist megacorperations?
They are certainly aligned with the US Democratic party, but I think it's a mistake to equate the Democrats with "the left" unless you're only speaking in that total American context where "Left=Dems, Right=GOP, end of story."
Where I live, US Democratic Party policy positions would be held by unelectable right wingers. I agree that confusing some kind of left alignment with the US Democratic Party is not advisable, even in parts of the USA.
the Democratic party of the USA is center-leftish at best.
For example they don't openly support
- unions
- universal free healthcare
- strong workers' guaranteed rights (paid holidays, paid sick leave, paternity/maternity, limited working hours - e.g. max 40 hours per week -, overtime pay etc. etc.)
Except for the word "free", https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/achievin... makes their position on universal health care clear. Exactly how the cost gets shared by society is something that's a bit more nuanced (there's no way for it to be completely free; the question is how much is funded by taxes vs other fees).
I believe you're projecting a picture you'd like to see. One that is painting the side you consider yourself to be a part of as morally clean and just, while the other side is reprehensible and shameless.
It has little to do with reality, and it's obvious that you haven't spent time with conservatives. It's not useful to only learn about those who think differently from yourself by listening to what those who think like you say about them. Your perception seems heavily based on shrill far left voices. It's essentially a mirror image of what somebody on the far-right thinks about progressives after hearing about what they do/did/want to do by listening to shrill far-right voices.
You probably should say the "center" instead of the "left". Or maybe the "liberals". That's because the "left" historically has been as assertive as the "right" if you look at the extreme communist parties VS fascists/feudal parties.
I do think you have a point though, but you can't be liberal and authoritarian at the same time. So to push for liberal ideas and laws/rights, while also pushing to enforce it through anti-liberal means is pretty contradictory, and so it makes sense most liberals don't do so.
Also remember that liberal societies are the exception in human history, not the rule. Almost never have people rallied around the idea that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and governments must not violate these rights.
I don't think the left could be reasonably construed to be in charge of social media. By output there's a lot of socialists online, for example, but they're not in charge.
Maybe some hyper-partisan American concept of leftism.
I absolutely agree that the right is partly successful because it isn't afraid to punch down from the status-quo. I'm a centre-right liberal democrat (UK), so I'm no socialist - although I firmly believe that most right-wingers are of the "capitalism for you, socialism for me"-type in practice.
> I don't think the left could be reasonably construed to be in charge of social media. By output there's a lot of socialists online, for example, but they're not in charge.
You could just split it into socially and economically. The social progressives are in total control of social media, search, and academia and are closing in on control in traditional media (think newspapers, TV, Hollywood). They're not economically left wing though, they're economically libertarian.
The capitalists used to work with the socially conservative, but have switched and are now aligned with the socially progressive. Might be because of a generational change, might be because they found to be able to make more money in a more progressive environment.
Future of the Left btw. is one of the best bands ever and are very helpful if you need a distraction from all this BS.
I fully agree on the notion that the right wields every power it can get, while the left doesn't.
We now have two years ahead of us where the Democrats are in full power of the US government. Let's see what they do with it. I'm especially interested if they are going to make sure to help themselves for the next election, by combating the voter suppression tactics that the Republicans use.
> The left likes to listen - an admirable trait, but listening and collaborating too much dilutes outcomes.
Who on the left (or any pole/dimension) has actually sat down and made a serious effort to understand in high detail the various grievances and world views of the type of people who stormed the Capitol, or conspiracy theorists?
I'm not asserting that no one has done it, but I have never encountered anyone who has. The best I know of is the Jubilee YouTube channel:
What I have encountered though, in very large quantities (essentially, the entirety of journalism and social media comments on the matter) are people who make detailed claims about what these sorts of people say, or believe, or want to do - and typically, they state these beliefs not in the form of opinions, but in the form of facts. But to be fair, I doubt that they even realize that they aren't facts, that's just the unfortunate way that our minds perceive reality.
I think an awful lot of Americans have family members on "the other side" even if they mostly associate with their own kind otherwise. So people know something first hand, completely apart from "journalism and social media".
At this point, the people I know who are on the right seem to be basically "waiting for the rapture", i.e. when the global conspiracy of literally everyone in the world against Trump will be revealed. While denying that they are a fan of the President, but both sides are criminal and bad, etc.
Discussing current events ends up being like watching Clint Eastwood argue with a chair. It clearly isn't fun for them, nor are they having any real dialogue. So it feels bad, and you try not to talk about politics any more.
I tried repeatedly with someone I know to propose that, if you don't trust anything in the "MSM", why don't you read the documents that are making news, the primary source when it's easily available? I rephrased it three times or so and it didn't stop the rant.
And I'm talking about someone who is really not that dumb, has a decent job, and is fine to talk to on other things than politics. But I just can't envision what a "serious effort" to break through would even look like.
I too know a few of the stereotypical "beyond delusional" types on the right, they do exist. But then I also know several onm the left whose take on things is "rather inconsistent" with a serious reading of the primary sources, and some reasonable, unemotional compilation. I imagine they are less crazy, and they are certainly better spoken (better vocabularies, etc), but I'd be interested to see an omniscient being's tally of the true distributed craziness out there.
Also, one shouldn't overlook things like confirmation bias - for every highly visible crazy you or I see, on either side, how many non-vocal people with reasonable ideas are there that the mind doesn't see, and therefore perceives to not exist (depending on the mode of thinking?
And then for those that do appear batshit insane - are they really as deluded as their words suggest? Your experiences seem to suggest so, but my question is: how do we go from the brutal discourse we've got going on now, to somewhere more reasonable? What actions do we have to take as a society, and as individuals (whether we "like to" or "should have to", or not), and what changes do we need to our social media platforms and media?
> But I just can't envision what a "serious effort" to break through would even look like.
I think both the way we report the news, and the way we discuss it, need a serious overhaul. The current approach of "news event/article --> social media argument --> go to bed -- > wake up --> (slightly updated) news event/article --> social media argument" is just an endless loop of outrage. I believe if we instead had some sort of a persistent model of each issue, showing all of the important attributes (with citations) and various and conflicting perspectives that we could refer to during debate rather than the latest news article, I think the conversation would be very different.
Compare how we discuss and analyze the complex matters and news of the world (which typically involve systems of some kind), versus how we do the same for complex systems at work - do the two approaches resemble each other?
Edit: to all those downvoters, I've seen how socialism/communism simply doesn't work long term, how it ruins society and decent people living in it, first hand, as much as possible. So its a bit more personal than anonymous internet ninja philosophers so popular not only here these days.
What you write doesn't make much sense. The world isn't black and white, and left and right have whole spectrum. The ultra (left or right) never overthink their decision, always feel righteous even if heading straight to hell. If you think moderate left (ie EU from US perspective), it might be a correct assessment from certain point of view (not a big fan of EU here, I like the theory but not many things in practice).
Moderate right/centrists could be described exactly same things as you say about left.
Why right might beat left, at least in theory, is because it gives people more money directly. People like that. tey like to have some control over such an important thing. Instead of massive taxation, that in ideal world isn't stolen in some way (in reality much/most of it is, or at least very badly mismanaged) and spent in social, health, education, infrastructure etc.
Once folks see real money, they have at least some control/choice over it. Even if kindergardens cost a fortune (there are other options in some cases), and paid maternity leave is shorter (you can stay longer but unpaid). And health care might cost something (but apart from US its not a bad idea generally, works great in Switzerland for example).
Oh and don't forget the lean state aparate, very attractive unless you are actually some semi-useless otherwise unemployable state bureaucrat. And so on.
If the right had control of the tech companies it would have removed left content years ago and never blinked or even thought twice about it.
The right never agonises over its own strong decisions, whereas the left, if it takes strong action , wrings its hands in agony about whether it has done the correct thing or not.
That's why in the long run the right will beat the left because it is utterly shameless in taken any action it can to assert power, whilst the left is reluctant to take any strong action.
The left scores a knockdown on the right via social media restriction, but soon enough, the left will offer a hand to help the right back up so they can win the fight.