Ideas we don't like should be fought with ideas, words challenged with words, falsities with facts: banishing voices is an acknowledgment that our ideas, words, facts are weaker than our opponent's, and its the first step in a long journey towards eventual defeat.
physically silencing those one hates is typical of totalitarianism, and very characteristic of both Fascists and Communists. Both are totally intolerant of contrary voices, and seek at their earliest to physically silence them, showing how insecure they are in their own beliefs.
all this talk of "moderating content" becomes totally hypocritical - when the very definition of "hate" is totally selective and arbitrary, a matter of arbitrary labeling without justification of the selectivity or honestly acknowledging the underlying preference ordering.
A standard of moderation that keeps Khameini's, or assorted jihadi outfits vicious, violent commentary on their pet hates and enemy populations or beliefs, as "acceptable" to spread their violent message - is ultimately self-defeating.
I know that reasoning doesnt work with totalitarians, for they know that by reason they have no justification. For me its a deeply disturbing route as almost always totalitarians rise on some genuine corner of a popular grievance, which gets lost on the way of rise to power.
The totalitarian obnoxiousness goes to such a critical point that the rest of "normality" have to ultimately band together to eliminate totalitarians and this in turn never succeeds without a great deal of loss of life and destruction. The original genuine grievance gets mangled.
Totalitarians will never win totally, but people's legitimate dreams on which they initially take power gets postponed or trashed -for they seek power to satisfy their own maniacal egos, and often obsessive sadistic ones -they fear the people they ride on as much as their rivals.
Every expansion of communication technology that allowed more people than before to communicate, always created upheavals within cozy ancien regimes. From the printing press in Europe to the internet. Every regime is always fearful of the free chatter between its subjects.
Censorship is as old as the thuggery of rulership. But one way or the other, censors mostly failed or were wise enough to let the steam out - and when they succeeded it usually meant an accumulation of angry blow up that was spectacular, even if not as luridly bloody as imagined.
Again I know there is no reasoning with totalitarians, Fascists, communists, jihadis. But true totalitarians are rare. I think most just get carried away by the seduction of seeming power over others that gives them a purpose in life. Maybe its a chance to make them think, again.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
