Is the left mainly censorship-happy, empire-supporting, virtue-signaling clowns? Or is that just the impression we get from social media? You can also find this at davidrovics.com/principles.
Yes and no. There are many types of "left": the far left, who philosophically feel they are mostly right about everything. The Central left, so offended by the "right," they think they need to be left (whatever that is). And last "the left behind"; people from the left who still have left values, but in this day of virtue signaling and pseudoscience, can't even imagine, identifying with what was once the left.
I am glad that someone sees sense that censorship by large advertising supported businesses has strong potential for misuse and has written a kind of constitution for social contact that allows for legitimate but challenging communication to be free and open, while making it easier to identify actions that will harm the group if they become too prominent, and trying to include those without the strongest intelligence as well
I would like to see a set of principles like this to gain traction. I'm not sure this iteration is idiot proof enough, but I'd be pleased to be proved wrong.
Apologies for long rambling and probably somewhat alarmed post. I try to mean well.
On the topic of the principles I generally agree with them except where I don't understand, for example if this post contains grandstanding or virtue signalling. I'm sorry if I am still a clown hiding from painful facts, I know I used to be.
I do appreciate that it is difficult to get round to reading messages like this and I do feel like I owe David at least the amount I'd pay for a coffee for reading this, because very few people would listen to a person with a monologue like this and I'm supposed to just be commenting on principles, not the state of everything, everywhere, all at once.
To anyone who reads this all, thank you for putting up with my attempt to summarise everything about geopolitics and housing in one comment, which was supposed to be about reducing the damage done by online harrassment by anonymous actors. In the wrong context heavy thoughts and bad vibes are what anybody want to keep out of any comfortable space. But advertising alone doesn't make comfortable thoughts happen and pure censorship doesn't make good vibes happen.
I used to be 'censorship happy' because I thought that the drama enthusing populist right wing was painful for my tired brain to read...
I didn't think through what a slippery slope that was, or how much worse it could be.
There are very few voices as clear as yours willing to go against the mainstream in the UK, "anti-refugee" cult the billionaire owned newspapers promote. It scared me to think that with the power of modern expensive marketing could do promoting the same messages about refugees as in 1939 like your song "Send Them Back".
_How do I counter the rising anti-immigrant propaganda? (concisely?)_
The trouble was I had no comeback. Why should we accept refugees? If it's so cheap to have them simply die elsewhere, what can I say to someone who would prefer them dead than their rent go up? What has been driving up the cost of their rent? I could believe it's climate change and intensive farming causing droughts creating deserts and floods in other places destroying property and shrinking habitable area. But since the type of person who would prefer to see people of a different creed or colour die than end up on the street while they work as hard as anybody just to afford rent tends not to care for that angle. I could say it's about having people laws passed that cap rental prices. However that would seem to lead to more corporate owned housing in places where governments are unwilling to build social housing, because small time landlords can't afford the mortgages and upkeep costs.
Billionaires mostly don't seem to care about the cost of housing for average people unless it's just low enough that everybody is distracted from dealing with the impending bigger issues and what they are going to mean for us all, whatever our skin tone or religion. Maybe I'm wrong about that one, but it's not as simple as racism even though it looks a lot like it.
I don't want refugees sent away, because I believe communities that can handle the needs of migrants, immigrants and refugees are stronger, so we should want to have them around, because the opposite is likely to lead to warfare (and warfare also reduces avalable land). believe we are collectively being forced "to squabble over crumbs from the billionaire's table", but these are just my estimations and maybe I've just made things worse by trying to express myself on the topic I would like addressed in as concise a way as possible as fast as possible because my racially prejudiced neighbours act smug* when they think violence and the suffering of others is the only solution. Which isn't really a good enough reason to bring up this issue perhaps, because fear of chaos often can cause chaos.
Maybe I'm not being pragmatic enough, maybe I'm part of the problem. But the issue looms without the causes being adequately in discussion these types of issues will fester and the more rotten the ideas promoted as the solution will be.
Are thoughts like these deemed to require censorship or should I just edit better?
Apologies if this isn't the right place. I often get that wrong too.
*acting smug at human suffering isn't the problem. That it disturbs me more than the suffering might be.
I agree in principle with all your points. Cancel *culture* is an issue and I agree with you wholeheartedly on its pernicious nature. However I do think that there may be situations where 'cancellation' might be appropriate. In the environment of journalism we would call it 'don't give them oxygen'. In the economic environment we might call it an embargo, in the socioeconomic, a boycott. It is a difficult issue and a fine line between 'cancellation' and 'censorship' (like all important moral questions). I think there is a difference between censorship, and blocking out a corrupted discourse. But I haven't thought it through yet :-). The term *cancel culture* allows a bit of wiggle room to condemn inappropriate 'cancellation'. For example, while we would not advocate allowing paedophiles a 'voice' (although we have decensored paedophilic literature like "Lolita" and some of the erotic stories of Anais Nin) this should not be taken as approval for the silencing, or persecution of LBGQTs.
I like all of them except #7. I draw the line at the massive worldwide medical scandal and delusional self-harm cult that's infecting people's brains. If refusing to join a cult is divisive, I'll be divisive.
Yes and no. There are many types of "left": the far left, who philosophically feel they are mostly right about everything. The Central left, so offended by the "right," they think they need to be left (whatever that is). And last "the left behind"; people from the left who still have left values, but in this day of virtue signaling and pseudoscience, can't even imagine, identifying with what was once the left.
I am glad that someone sees sense that censorship by large advertising supported businesses has strong potential for misuse and has written a kind of constitution for social contact that allows for legitimate but challenging communication to be free and open, while making it easier to identify actions that will harm the group if they become too prominent, and trying to include those without the strongest intelligence as well
I would like to see a set of principles like this to gain traction. I'm not sure this iteration is idiot proof enough, but I'd be pleased to be proved wrong.
Thank you.
Apologies for long rambling and probably somewhat alarmed post. I try to mean well.
On the topic of the principles I generally agree with them except where I don't understand, for example if this post contains grandstanding or virtue signalling. I'm sorry if I am still a clown hiding from painful facts, I know I used to be.
I do appreciate that it is difficult to get round to reading messages like this and I do feel like I owe David at least the amount I'd pay for a coffee for reading this, because very few people would listen to a person with a monologue like this and I'm supposed to just be commenting on principles, not the state of everything, everywhere, all at once.
To anyone who reads this all, thank you for putting up with my attempt to summarise everything about geopolitics and housing in one comment, which was supposed to be about reducing the damage done by online harrassment by anonymous actors. In the wrong context heavy thoughts and bad vibes are what anybody want to keep out of any comfortable space. But advertising alone doesn't make comfortable thoughts happen and pure censorship doesn't make good vibes happen.
I used to be 'censorship happy' because I thought that the drama enthusing populist right wing was painful for my tired brain to read...
I didn't think through what a slippery slope that was, or how much worse it could be.
There are very few voices as clear as yours willing to go against the mainstream in the UK, "anti-refugee" cult the billionaire owned newspapers promote. It scared me to think that with the power of modern expensive marketing could do promoting the same messages about refugees as in 1939 like your song "Send Them Back".
_How do I counter the rising anti-immigrant propaganda? (concisely?)_
The trouble was I had no comeback. Why should we accept refugees? If it's so cheap to have them simply die elsewhere, what can I say to someone who would prefer them dead than their rent go up? What has been driving up the cost of their rent? I could believe it's climate change and intensive farming causing droughts creating deserts and floods in other places destroying property and shrinking habitable area. But since the type of person who would prefer to see people of a different creed or colour die than end up on the street while they work as hard as anybody just to afford rent tends not to care for that angle. I could say it's about having people laws passed that cap rental prices. However that would seem to lead to more corporate owned housing in places where governments are unwilling to build social housing, because small time landlords can't afford the mortgages and upkeep costs.
Billionaires mostly don't seem to care about the cost of housing for average people unless it's just low enough that everybody is distracted from dealing with the impending bigger issues and what they are going to mean for us all, whatever our skin tone or religion. Maybe I'm wrong about that one, but it's not as simple as racism even though it looks a lot like it.
I don't want refugees sent away, because I believe communities that can handle the needs of migrants, immigrants and refugees are stronger, so we should want to have them around, because the opposite is likely to lead to warfare (and warfare also reduces avalable land). believe we are collectively being forced "to squabble over crumbs from the billionaire's table", but these are just my estimations and maybe I've just made things worse by trying to express myself on the topic I would like addressed in as concise a way as possible as fast as possible because my racially prejudiced neighbours act smug* when they think violence and the suffering of others is the only solution. Which isn't really a good enough reason to bring up this issue perhaps, because fear of chaos often can cause chaos.
Maybe I'm not being pragmatic enough, maybe I'm part of the problem. But the issue looms without the causes being adequately in discussion these types of issues will fester and the more rotten the ideas promoted as the solution will be.
Are thoughts like these deemed to require censorship or should I just edit better?
Apologies if this isn't the right place. I often get that wrong too.
*acting smug at human suffering isn't the problem. That it disturbs me more than the suffering might be.
I agree in principle with all your points. Cancel *culture* is an issue and I agree with you wholeheartedly on its pernicious nature. However I do think that there may be situations where 'cancellation' might be appropriate. In the environment of journalism we would call it 'don't give them oxygen'. In the economic environment we might call it an embargo, in the socioeconomic, a boycott. It is a difficult issue and a fine line between 'cancellation' and 'censorship' (like all important moral questions). I think there is a difference between censorship, and blocking out a corrupted discourse. But I haven't thought it through yet :-). The term *cancel culture* allows a bit of wiggle room to condemn inappropriate 'cancellation'. For example, while we would not advocate allowing paedophiles a 'voice' (although we have decensored paedophilic literature like "Lolita" and some of the erotic stories of Anais Nin) this should not be taken as approval for the silencing, or persecution of LBGQTs.
I like all of them except #7. I draw the line at the massive worldwide medical scandal and delusional self-harm cult that's infecting people's brains. If refusing to join a cult is divisive, I'll be divisive.
John Zerzan and Noam Chomsky have shown their true faces. The masks are slipping off.