For the record, I am pro vaccine, I was very pro mask during COVID, and I strongly supported the various lockdown and masking policies. If anything I felt they often didn’t go far enough, prioritizing continuity of business over public health. For the most part I stand by those positions. The question here is not the validity of anti-maskers or anti-vaxxers, or the question that their visibility can do harm to society. I believe it is pretty obvious that such groups did some serious harm and cost a lot of lives.
The question here is whether the government should be coordinating with technology platforms to suppress speech it disagrees with or considers harmful. And I think the answer is hell no. Even if they requests in the COVID era were helpful, this is not a good thing for government to be doing.
Go back to the 9/11 era. It was a similar situation, just with the parties reversed. Then a Republican government was saying limits on civil liberties were essential for national security, and opposition to these policies help terrorists. Now a Democratic government was saying limits on civil liberties were necessary for public health and opposition to these policies spreads disease. The merits of these two positions are irrelevant. What matters is that a free American people should have the opportunity to make that judgment for themselves, not have the “wrong” answer suppressed before they even see it. Because if we suppress the ‘wrong’ anti-vax today, then we open the door to suppress the ‘right’ answer tomorrow.
If American people are such sheep that they must be protected from ‘wrong’ ideas, then the answer is not censorship, it is education. If we are that stupid, that we need to be treated like children, then we need to very quickly and with great urgency figure out why our educational system is failing to teach critical thinking and fix it immediately.
I'd largely agree if it was as simple as people being allowed to make wrong choices.. But its much more than that. Nefarious actors have literally weaponized disinformation on social media in attempts to sow distrust, animosity, and general social unrest, and that absolutely needs to be addressed beyond just 'better education'. Governments have the challenge of balancing the peoples civil rights with maintaining a healthy and relatively orderly society.. I'm all for free speech but weaponized disinformation is a legitimate threat that shouldn't be downplayed. IMO.
weaponized disinformation is a legitimate threat that shouldn't be downplayed
If anything, I'd like to see this be made one of the more important issues by our politicians. It really bugs me that, after all the attacks on our society by bad actors using actual disnfo campaigns, there really isn't anyone making it a major campaign issue (correct me if I'm wrong!). These bad actors are using our obsession with free speech as a weapon against us, fighting a war that our government doesn't appear to give two shits about. I really believe we can figure a way to fight back without stepping on freedom's toes. I mean, we're supposed to be fucking America for chrissakes, we can figure this out!
This is not a partisan issue and I am not taking a partisan position. I’m not endorsing or defending Republicans or anti-vaxxers. GOP does a lot of crappy stuff. That doesn’t automatically mean I should line up to support every single thing the Democrats do. We need better education. We need less censorship. These are two separate unrelated issues.
I'm more concerned about book bans than giving misinformation a loudspeaker. I used to be what you would call a "free speech absolutist". No longer - we've seen "free speech" weaponized in abhorrent ways.
Once again, my position and my post were non-partisan.
I am 100% against book bans. I’m 100% against ‘suppression of ideas on social media’.
I also think the cure feeds the disease. The second someone in authority says ‘you musn’t say that’ or ‘you musn’t believe that’ or ‘that idea is dangerous’, you create the conditions for weaponized misinformation to flourish. Doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong. The instant you classify a position as unacceptable, a whole host of people (many of them stupid) will adopt that position for no reason other than that they were told not to. They’ll say ‘the establishment told me not to do this, there must be something here that I want that they want for themselves’.
Look at coronavirus. Yes there was TONS of weaponized misinformation. But the way our culture made it unacceptable to even question the status quo helped spread that. Republicans (and idiots) accused the government of a power grab, treading on civil liberties, using a fancy flu as an excuse to grab power. I don’t personally agree with that take, but if you suddenly aren’t allowed to say or share it, that puts a LOT of legitimacy to the ‘trying to grab power’ argument. First they come for your freedom of movement or freedom to make your own medical decisions, next they come for your freedom of speech when you try to say otherwise!
I honestly believe the suppression efforts, if anything, only amplified the message they were trying to suppress.
And I’d point out- if the government has the authority to mute a loudspeaker, then what happens next time when the guy with the loudspeaker is correct? If we make suppression of speech a legitimate government power, who’s to say it will only be used for good?
I don't think I mentioned any parties. While we're here, though, without a doubt only one of them seems to be pushing for book bans, banning drag (free speech), restricting what people can do with their own bodies, make-believe legal cases with ultimate authority, etc all the while whining about the freedom to spread deadly lies. This is entirely partisan - this people the article discusses. Partisan. They are so extreme that I'm not falling for this being about the first amendment.
Right wing fascists have long known that a small number of loud people can still be heard so long as everyone else sits back. Good on Philadelphians for not sitting back!
It makes sense when you consider how liberty has been constantly redefined over history by different cultural contexts. "Liberty" to these people has been taken to mean "Our freedom to raise our children as we see fit, free from unwanted external 'worldly' influences", akin to the Christian theological interpretation of liberty. The choice of word also taps into nationalist pride, so people can easily tell they're aligning with people who would describe themselves as being "patriots".
It's an effective and insidious form of marketing that has ironically backfired on the US government, who have been perfectly happy to use the concept as a tool to get their citizens to sign up for the military and fuel the economy.
And then once they've secured that 'liberty' for themselves they'll feel free to force their particular brand of liberty on others whether they want it or not, because fascism.
@Metaright "Until both sides start addressing each other's actual arguments"
Really, no.
The entire anti-abortion thing has been wrought from nothing, for the express purpose of working up conservative voters. Like the anti-drag thing, the anti-'woke' thing, etc.
The 'actual' argument on the forced birther side comes down to whether a person capable of being pregnant has bodily autonomy. That side completely denies this. You simply can't have a rational argument with people who want you dead, injured, or tied to a life with children you don't want and/or can't afford. Who think scooping out a clump of cells with no independent thought or existence is worse than an 8 year old being forced to bear a child to term, an adult dying of sepsis or giving birth to a 'baby' incapable of survival or a life free from pain and severe disability.
Their argument basically comes down to "Kinder, Küche, Kirche". Keep women barefoot, pregnant, and uneducated.
Setting aside how absolutely corrupt it would be for the court to hear this case let alone ruling in a predictable pro-business decision to explicitly kneecap future wealth tax legislation that doesn't even exist yet, I have to say that the author of this article has a real mastery.
"This is no idle threat,” the Moores said in their petition for review, referring to a federal wealth tax. They cited proposals by the Biden administration and Oregon Senator Ron Wyden to tax billionaires based on their assets, none of which have passed Congress.
"THIS IS LIFE OR DEATH," said people who would still vote for Trump even though his policies hurt them personally, so they're reframing it all as fear-mongering against democrats whose proposals have never gained enough traction since 2017 to ever come close to becoming legislation.
"THE DANGER IS REAL," crowed people rich enough to own tigers on their estate about puppies and kitties they saw painted in a poster.
Sidestepping the fetal personhood argument for the moment, the fact is that no one has a right to your body but you. You cannot be coerced to donate an organ, so it stands to reason that you also cannot be coerced to carry an unwanted pregnancy.
If the pro-choice movement focused on rhetoric like that more, I think it would have much more success. Of course, that's only if the pro-life people are receptive to having their minds changed.
Good luck with that. There's a very strong argument to be made that the so-called pro-life movement is thinly-veiled white supremacy with its roots in Brown v. Board of Education.
Apologies if that comes off as excessively bitter.
It’s a solid argument but the problem is that it concedes the fetal personhood argument which is far from settled. And conceding that point leads to a whole bunch of, frankly, nonsensical legal implications down the line (not just about abortion but about nearly everything) so it doesn’t really make sense to move on from it.
I agree. That’s why I think pro-lifers should not be allowed to get abortions and pro-choicers should be allowed to. Problem solved, and no one’s freedoms are infringed.
So many social solutions can be handled this way too. Don’t like gay people? Don’t be gay, but don’t stand in the way of others who are. Drinking is against your religion? Don’t drink, but don’t stop others from drinking. Most of our problems with these debates is that people try to impose their rules and limitations on others and that simply isn’t fair.
I don't think you really got my point. If you truly, honestly believed that doing something resulted in the death of a child, of course you'd want to prevent anyone from doing it. We already have a law against murder, and surely you wouldn't say "then they just shouldn't murder people, but don't try to impose their beliefs on me!"
The point is that, from the perspective that fetuses are children, restricting abortion is the most logical and consistent approach. This is unavoidable, and you can't change their minds if you don't address this. The way to sway a pro-lifer, then, is to demonstrate that a fetus doesn't have personhood.
@Metaright "The way to sway a pro-lifer, then, is to demonstrate that a fetus doesn't have personhood."
No, first you have to persuade them that the life of the fetus bearer is worth something more than being an incubator.
Which you will never do.
People who are anti-abortion fanatics may or may not believe that a fetus is a baaaaaby, really. But what they really do not believe in is the personhood of the placenta owner.
And until you find a way to convince them that a real, living, breathing human being with feelings and rights who already exists independently has rights, including that to life unburdened by an unwanted pregnancy for any reason, you won't convince them of anything else.
So. Lets start with the discussion of what is actually murder. US and every state law defines murder as some variation of this:
Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being....At common law, murder was defined as killing another human being with malice aforethought....
In short, "murder" is the unlawful killing of a human being. So, lets look at abortion as murder:
Is it lawful? yes. generally it is. with few exceptions.
is a fetus a human being? Scientifically, it's not. you or any one else might believe it is. But it is not. It has more in common with a parasite. but equally, one might believe that domestic cats are aliens sent to dominate the world. Such belief is immaterial to reality and to fact, as it is a matter of religion/faith/philosophy and the US is a secular nation, not a theocracy. So no. It's not yet a human.
So no. It is not murder. it's generally lawful, and within the scientific and medical community (you know, the people who study these things,) it is not yet a human. It's a mere collection of cells on it's way to becoming a human, sure. But it is not yet a human. It fails on both aspects.
Furthermore,
If you truly, honestly believed that doing something resulted in the death of a child, of course you'd want to prevent anyone from doing it.
You're right. Which is why it's so very damnably curious that the majority of pro-lifers are also in such ardent opposition to contraceptives. Knowing as I do, that the single most effective way of reducing unwanted pregnancies is inexpensive (or, gasp free) and easy access to contraceptives, and that the majority of elective abortions will be prevented if one prevents unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
Pro-Life hypocrisy at it's finest, right there. But wait. there's more.
depending on who you ask, 12 weeks is the earliest a fetus can feel pain, with many saying 24 weeks. up until the '80's it was was believed that newborns couldn't feel pain, since their brain was undeveloped.. and at 12 weeks, there's no connections to the brain, and the brain isn't quite developed enough to process that until 24 weeks. But even then, the fetus is not conscious- the necessary brain development isn't even in place until the third trimester- about 28 weeks.
Why is this a matter of hypocrisy? You see... for the first half of it's existence, a fetus has about as much sentience, sapience and intelligence than a starfish. So if the argument is that is "murder"... then I would expect Pro-Lifers to be vegans. Interestingly, it seems the vast majority... are not. (to be clear, animal welfare and women's reproductive rights are different issues and should be treated as different issues. However. if the ethics are "that's a sentient being" apply to a collection of cells that can't think, can't feel... then those ethical considerations should also apply to animals.)
Politics
Hot