The recent censorship events have shown that many don't understand what's a principle.
If you only practice it when convenient, it's not a principle.
1/11
This doesn't mean that a principle cannot be partisan.
For example, "I put the family first" can be a principle.
But then you must put your family first, both when it's convenient for you and when it isn't.
Otherwise it's not a principle.
2/11
What is the purpose of principles?
They keep us focused on the long term when the short term would misguide us
For example, I do not like Trump. And yet, yesterday I defended his free speech. Because I believe that defending free speech is ultimately good for everyone.
3/11
Principles protect us from undesired or unthinkable consequences.
They protect us from the problems we didn't experience and from what could go wrong.
They are there for when we think they could be transgressed. They are there for when we think it makes sense to skip them.
4/11
Rights are a form of principles.
Rights are preserved by granting them to our enemies.
The moment we cease to grant them when inconvenient for us, we cease to have them too.
The moment we destroy their sanctity, we open the door to someone else taking them from us.
5/11
Theoretically, you can draw a line to when a right is suspended. For example, you could decide that speech can be censored when inviting to violence
However, in practice, lines can be moved. Say, someone could define an opinion creating emotional discomfort as violence.
6/11
Some organizations have principles. They're called Core Values.
Anyone who worked in a company knows that Core Values become meaningless as soon as lines are drawn, explicitly or implicitly.
Eg, we request respect for people, unless you're a star performer.
It won't work
7/11
In the short term, it might seem efficient to violate principles when convenient. In the long term it never is.
This is because violating principles has second-order effects, and in the long term, they catch up with you.
8/11
Violating principles is like the Russian Roulette.
Five out of six times, you'll be better off.
And some idiot-yet-intellectual might even justify that the average outcome is positive. And he might be right.
But if you keep doing it, the bullet eventually hits you.
Imagine it’s 2024, Trump runs for presidency again, and he wins.
The Democrats, surprised by the results in a few counties, ask for a forensic audit of the voting machines but some get denied, “there’s no evidence”.
1/N
2/ You, a Democrat, don’t like the answer, because the other party spent the last 4 years talking about interference during the elections.
3/ You get told to respect the democratic process.
But you do already want to respect it! Perhaps, you even believe that your candidate did lose, but now you get suspicions because the Republicans are dismissing the claims of foul play rather than investigating them.
In the physical past, power was monopoly on violence.
In the digital future, it is about controlling who processes information and how.
(Thread, 1/N)
2/ First, a note. The distinction is not so black and white. For example, the use of force can still be relevant in the digital world (e.g., coercion).
As another example, in many dystopias, power is monopoly on information enforced through physical means.
3/ But the point is, the logic of violence determines the structure of society. And what is valuable and how it can be seized is a key input.
Also, the idea that North Korea is ranked third-last should have been a tell.
Isolation and authoritarianism seem an advantage here.
So, let's see who are the IYI who worked on the pile of BS that is this report.
"The GHS Index is a project of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (JHU) and was developed with The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)"