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
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.
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)"