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.
4/ So, you begin asking question on social media.

But your posts get marked as “disputed”.
5/ At the beginning, you didn’t care too much about the result of the elections. But now, you see the fairness of the democratic process at stake.

How can you know that elections are fair, if claims of wrongdoing are dismissed?

You get angry.
6/ Republicans, on the other hand, think you’re a conspiracy theorist.

Of course elections were fair. There was no evidence of interference.

And most of the claims got investigated.

But you, a Democrat, don’t know that. You heard Republican representatives dismissing claims.
7/ You’re now polarized more than ever.

You used to have a “sportive rivalry” with the members of the other party. Different political opinions, but still fellow countrymen.

Now, though, you begin to see at least some of them as enemies of your country.
8/ Yesterday, your representative got censored.

The media platform said that it was done to de-escalate violence.

But you see it as a threat to free speech, and thus to democracy.

For them, it was a de-escalatory act. For you, it’s escalatory.
10/ The Republicans of 2024 talk about healing the country, but you don’t understand. Healing begins from listening, and they’re not listening.

On the other hand, the Republicans don’t understand. They see the few Democrats that call for violence. Of course they won’t listen.
10/ No healing until your party and theirs takes seriously the others’ concerns.
11/ – – –

I hesitated to write this post. For one, I’m not American and I have no business to discuss American politics.

OTOH, I thought it could be of value, at least for some. I’ve heard a similar speech (google “A radical experiment on empathy”) and it was life-changing.
12/ So, I’ve decided to post a similar “see from the other person’s point of view” experiment.

I might have gotten some facts and interpretations wrong, but I hope the readers will focus on the core message and not on the details.

I’m listening.
13/ The point is not what happened.

The point is that if concerns are not taken seriously, what really happened won’t matter.

Only polarizing narratives will be left.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Luca Dellanna

Luca Dellanna Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DellAnnaLuca

8 Jan
ON PRINCIPLES

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
Read 11 tweets
8 Jan
THOUGHTS ON CENSORSHIP

1/ Censorship you don’t like always begins as censorship you like.

2/ Allowing censorship assumes that this power can be taken back and that it won't corrupt the censor. Two strong assumptions.
3/ Censorship assumes that your party will stay in charge forever and won't turn against you. Strong assumptions.

Rule of thumb: don't allow censorship if you're not willing to have your enemies as the censors.

4/ The moment you withhold your enemies a right, you open the door from it being withhold from you.

Rights are preserved by giving them to your enemies.
Read 20 tweets
6 Jan
This report, published 2 months before the COVID-19 outbreak, got it so wrong that it's worth asking ourselves what could avoid similar failures.

More competent people, yes, but there's more. Thread.

For the curious, the full report is here: ghsindex.org/wp-content/upl…

In the next tweets a few highlights.
The report got so many things wrong. For example, it gave maximum preparedness scores to the US, a country that didn't act like it was very prepared.

Does the fact that the report was largely US funded matter? Did it "force" a high score?

Read 16 tweets
6 Jan
SEMANTIC WARS

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.

(examples over the next tweets)

Read 15 tweets
5 Jan
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)"
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!