Aristocracy & Censorship

[Nehtaro]

Just some thoughts, I'll probably delete this post later. Shout out to Stratiyevskaya and Talanov for not being afraid to point out the worst in humanity and opening my eyes to things like this.

Aristocrats have a tendency to desire to censor and control others. This is manifested in a sudden impulse of malevolence, a desire to shut someone down, silence them. IEI and SLI express this the least, but the desire is still there--they just want someone else to do the censoring. The action of censorship establishes (or reinforces) a vertical power dynamic between the Aristocrat and the censored. It serves not only as an indication of power to the censored, but to any witnesses as well. The level of aggressiveness is increased when there are witnesses.

Aristocrats gravitate towards vertical power structures, where coercive power is distributed asymmetrically. Gaining and exercising the right to censor and control others is intrinsically desired. If no formal divisions exists, authority will be assumed by right of conquest ('I am the authority because I have decided I am the authority')--if divisions exist, there will be competition for the right to censor and control.

Methods used for censorship include:
--directly telling someone to stfu
--harsh glares
--expressing indignation, offense, and righteous anger
--attempting to make someone feel stupid, ashamed, and inferior, with belittling insults, sarcasm, and rhetorical questions ('did you seriously think that was an OK thing to say? are you that much of a fucking idiot?')
--forced removal from room/area, immediate disciplining
--ignoring someone's statement, continuing on as if they weren't there and hadn't said anything, as if they are not a human but an inanimate object

Democrats be warned. Potential triggers include:
--Speaking out of turn, or inappropriately in a formal setting
--Expressing your opinion without having earned the right to do so, and without contributing value to the group (in the eyes of the Aristocrat)
--Expressing opinions which detract from the Aristocrat's power, or from the power of the structure from which the Aristocrat derives their power (i.e. heresy)
--Criticism

All of these are magnified when in the presence of others. The same utterance could result in vastly different reactions depending on if it is in a private (1 to 1) or public setting. There is more mercy in private.

Bonus Section on Power Dynamics:
Allowing yourself to be censored without resistance (or with weak resistance) establishes a precedent and solidifies the vertical relationship. Resisting the censorship establishes one's independence from the censor's authority ('you have no power here') and can sometimes even reverse the power dynamic (by censoring the would-be censor). Sometimes resistance is more subtle, and sends the implicit message: 'this battle isn't worth it for me, but be careful how you treat me--I will punish you if you overstep.' Power dynamics are constantly evolving as individuals attempt to reify their place in the hierarchy through controlling and coercing others. Rivalries, when they occur, are usually between Super-Ego types who are peers in the same ecosystem and both refuse to concede to the other. This is not to say that Super-Ego types always experience rivalry. The underlying cause of rivalries is the automatic recognition in both people that they are playing a zero-sum game; they want the same thing(s), but they cannot simultaneously fulfill their desires. I'm not sure how they play out for Super-Ego pairs outside of my own so I won't write about that.

Disclaimer: This is just my perspective and not the Absolute Universal Truth. Don't respond, I don't care what most of you think. The End.

[Bertrand]

yes this is why even the SJWest deltas have this bizarre proclivity to advocate "fixing things" via censorship. is is a rare delta indeed that would rule it out as categorically illegitimate in principle (and stick to it) it is always a matter of circumstance whether or not it is appropriate, which seems directly at odds with their otherwise benevolent leanings. but with them it is always benevolent as to who

[chrys]

This is my form if censorship: "I really don't care... *eye roll*"




Also There's a difference for me between:

1) Censoring someone completely by talking over them or ignoring them or outright not letting them communicate anything through force (physical or on the internet)

and

2) Telling someone their ideas are terrible, with the "harsh glare" and stfu tone of voice. I think I prefer to start with just saying my judgements outright so that I can be proven wrong or disagreed with, I just like them to be known lol. I don't even say "stfu" in a serious way.


I can be fairly (but calmly) aggressive when it comes to turning down ideas and critiqueing almost anything, but I unlike others actually have a fear of people taking advantage of others so I instinctively insist that the least popular opinions be heard first. I love to hear everyone and actually prefer the opinions of my enemies and strangers over my friends, since friends already have influence over me.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Deltas are pretty easy going people, but their lack of interest - or rather, appreciation of the physical qualities/realities of the environment (Se) and focus on Fi - in cases of Delta STs especially, resulting in personal sentiments, means they can really become disruptive members of society, misfits, rebels - extreme hedonists (Rasputin - SLI). Not the cozy blanket people that's often described.

[Sol]

Any word is an influence, information is a power. So _any_ power controls it to keep own control. The total lack of censorship means inabbility for hierarchy, while it's useful.
Also it's common when as "censorship" as bad is called that is for interests of political opponents, like there is no same own censorship. Try to say "anything" in "free" USA publicly and you'll get the same problems like in Northern Korea.
In short: censorship is a common and obligate instrument of power.

While Reinin's dichotomies are bs.

[Desert Financial]

In short: censorship is a common and obligate instrument of power.

Spoken like a true aristocrat.

[Chae]

Censorship in Delta revealed (emoji ver.)

- What you talk about is so old, obvious, boring, irrelevant, really nothing new. Try harder I steal your ideas for later, keep talking actually
- Not much worth in the things you present right there, doesn't help anybody advance So listen: *heartless "common sense" gaslighting*... that means you do this not that.
- You're problematic and I don't have the nerve to deal with you for some obscure reason which is actually my hypocrisy, bye!
- Are you trying to mess with my leisure? I'm just sitting here enjoying stuff. My way of life is superior (umm, to myself, chill), please get out

[FDG]

It's mostly a characteristic of subjectivism (Reinin dichotomy) + .

Deltas will hardly show this behavior, since you can always counter-attack their observiations by pointing at your past achievments (Reinin objectivism), at your expertise in understanding the situation, and so on.

Beta ST are the worst offenders from this point of view, however SLEs are supervised by ESIs and thus easily flushed away and kept in their place in a multi-quadra environment. LSIs in positions of power may overuse this tendency but they have role so when healthy they refrain from doing this.

Gamma SFs may have this tendency, however:

1. If they need you, you can always menace that you will leave them, their company etc. and they'll change their mind
2. If they don't need you, you'd better off finding another chance

[Aramas]

If this is true, I'm no longer Delta.

[at sirac son of sirac]

If this is true, I'm no longer Delta.

Lots of people want to control, it's not necessarily a type thing, it's just an idea put forward.

[Pookie]

"Power is control of others, but control over oneself is true strength".

I think people shouldn't be censored, and if they say something real bad, someone else is liable to punch them in the face. Rule of the Jungle; Society equalizes behavior. When you censor people, it's a defense mechanism spurred from feeling like you have a lack of power. Bonus: controlling others' speech reinforces that words are powerful and that helps alleviate that feeling of powerlessness.

My take is that if a word hurts your feelings, that's a word you need to hear. And the urge to censor others is a weakness in character.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Any word is an influence, information is a power. So _any_ power controls it to keep own control. The total lack of censorship means inabbility for hierarchy, while it's useful.
Also it's common when as "censorship" as bad is called that is for interests of political opponents, like there is no same own censorship. Try to say "anything" in "free" USA publicly and you'll get the same problems like in Northern Korea.
In short: censorship is a common and obligate instrument of power.

While Reinin's dichotomies are bs.

Not quite as simple as that.

Law is about a balance of freedom vs restrictions.

For instance, in society, you can't just go and take peoples stuff - it's called stealing (so a restriction).

The more complex a society, the more elaborate the debates of freedom vs censorship - hence there's debates about freedom of speech, and restrictions of actions, but you can still mostly do what you want. What's in US isn't perfect but it's still the best working model.

For some it's power, for others it's about a balance for democracy, others again care not to bother either way.

And stuff... Anyway what's for dinner.

[Muddy]

Can society just collapse please?

[Adam Strange]

Well said! Democracy is a flawed system anyways, having 51% agree on something doesn't make it true. And tbh I don't think everyone's opinion has equal value, some people know better than others. And why should I willingly give people a share of my power anyways, I you want it, come and take it, it's not like power comes easily. Not that I actually have any power, but hypothetically speaking. If you see yourself as being above the idea of controlling others for moral or idealistic reasons, then prepare to be controlled, because there's no such thing as not being part of the game, refusing to take part in the power struggle just puts you at the bottom of it. Why is the world like this? Because there are a limited amount of resources in the world, and nothing comes for free. You could argue that we can have unlimited resources thanks to modern technology in forms of wind and solar energy, but even then someone is responsible for making those technologies and putting them into use, and if you think they are gonna simply give you the fruits of that labour with no catch, then I'm sorry but you're a naive sucker. We have our high living standard today thanks to industrialization and systematic cooperation between people in forms of power hierarchies and trading. Someone made the industries that you benefit from by their own blood sweat and tears, and creative thinking, they earned the position it put them in. And if you wanna bail out of the power struggle, then I suggest you throw away all your belongings and go out in nature and live like an animal.

Very true. for a long time, I wondered why democracy was having better outcomes than an enlightened dictatorship.

It turns out that an enlightened leader can make faster and better progress than any democracy can. The problems come in the downsides. It's like being cared for by a crummy doctor who rarely makes horrible mistakes, vs a brilliant doctor who screws up once super-effectively and kills his patients.

Another reason democracy can have better outcomes (and realize that most Democracies revert to dictatorships in times of war, which is why presidents love wars so much) is something related to consensual decision making. It turns out that group decisions have better outcomes, on average, than decisions made by skilled individuals. Why this is so, I don't know, but there's tons of stuff about this on the web.

-Adam "the foiled dictator" Strange.

[Chthonic Daydream]

Ah, democracy. Or as i like to call it, demonocracy. Also emphasis on the 'no' there. Basically manipulate just a tiny bit more than half of the population and you can twist the whole system around your finger. Unfair and flawed on so many levels. Then again, I tend to see the politics as nothing more but a charade (one in which, sadly, people have to die for the sake of some leader's ego).

I vote for 'Can society just collapse, please?' as well!

[anndelise]

When it comes to people's morals, it's better to look at something like Haidt's 5 moral foundations rather than socionics.
In regards to censorship, there are too many reasons for censoring, or feeling censored, than "delta/beta" covers. For example:

* The care/harm moral foundation: Those with high care morals/ethics might try to influence people to consider the vulnerability of certain populations and how it's not ethical to exploit, demean, or harm them. While those with lower care morals/ethics, who are more willing to hurt others in order to gain what they want will call "foul" ...and do whatever they can to censor those with higher care morals. Since those who are more willing to harm others would be more willing to use violence or coercion to get their way, they are more likely to use that as their primary censoring attempts than a high care morals person would. The high harm moral person would also be more willing to try to keep their victims from speaking out, from laws being made that would prevent them from harming/coercing others, attempt to dehumanize others, and would feel 'censored' and complain about PC environments which look down on their harmful desires/actions.

* Fairness/Cheating moral foundation. In similar manner as care/harm, people who are willing to cheat and deceive would feel censored by those who speak up for fairness, while also trying to censor those who speak up for fairness...even if they have to deceive and cheat to do so.

* Loyalty/Betrayal moral foundation. In similar manner people loyal to one group may try to censor anyone who speaks out against their group or group leader, while being more than willing to speak out against another group they dislike or are in competition with. We see this on both sides of sports teams, in religious arguments, in politics. For example, Trump supporters were more than willing to speak out against Obama, but try to censor anyone who speaks out about Trump. We even see groups of people justifying voting for sexual predators into office merely because that sexual predator is on their political team...but heaven forbid you talk smack about him being a sexual predator.

* Authority/Subversive moral foundation. Again, similar type of thing going on here. If we don't acknowledge someone's 'Authority', we'll likely try to censor them and feel fully justified in doing so. But heaven forbid someone doesn't accept the Authority of someone else which we accept the Authority on. For example, the "authority" of socionics writers, the "authority" of climate change scientists, the "authority" of Haidt and his 5 moral foundations research, the "authority" of the IRS, lawmakers, etc.

* Sanctity/Degradation moral foundation. Once again, similar to what I've been saying. Religious groups wanting to censor same sex coupling, censoring biracial coupling, censoring pregnancy options, etc...and the people who want to censor those censorships. Then there's those wanting to censor poisoning the lands/air, censoring genetically modifying our foods, censoring hunting animals for sport, etc...and the people who want to censor those censorships. Even on the forum we have those who want to censor others who bring in their own ideas about socionics, even to the point where some mostly Gamma types broke off from the forum to create their own, more pure, version of "classical socionics" (or whatever).


In final, pretty much anytime one person complains about being censored, or tries to dehumanize or strawman those they perceive are censoring them, are themselves attempting to censor. (And yes, I recognize that some people might interpret this post of mine as me attempting to censor discussions about how beta/delta are the ones who censor others and gamma/alpha are the ones so willing to allow everyone to speak their mind, ...yet themselves would also try to censor the idea that gamma/alpha might also do censoring of their own and that censorship isn't a quadra thing, it's a humans trying to function beside other humans in a society thing. )

[Skepsis]

Free speech means nothing without context. Historically, it was to protect freethought, not open bigotry.

[Skepsis]

Freethought was the foundation of liberal democracy, where rationality was the basis for legitimate power. Question dogmatic(irrational, therefore, illigitimate) ideas tied to power. It's an open ended question that constantly needs to be defended. No one has a right to call someone "a ******". That is misunderstanding what rights are intended for. We have seen the cultural rejection of Enlightenment principles and the virtues associated with freethought. Free speech has become the expression of one's passion on a wim and is shallow.

[Adam Strange]

Well if you read it on the internet it must be true. The majority of sources says that decisions made by the majority has better outcomes. But yeah I do agree to some extent to what you're saying, it's like one of those challenges where there's a jar of candy and you're supposed to guess how much candy there is in it, and if you make enough people guess and take the average of all the guesses, it will approach the correct answer. I'm just wondering, if there is such a thing as a group of elite individuals with disproportionate amount of power, which I think there is, then why would they let the majority decide anything? I guess just telling people they are under control and that they need to do what they're told isn't such a smart move, that would just create antagonism. So we have representative democracy, which is nice if there are many political parties, but in cases like the US where there's only really two sides to vote for it's kinda silly isn't it. It's a bit like asking a child "do you wanna go to bed now or in 15 minutes" a classic method of making a child go to bed, it creates the illusion of free will. "Do you wanna vote for the fat orange guy or the insane smiley lady?" And if you go back and forth between right and left, democrats get 4-8 years or whatever it is, then republicans get some time to do their stuff as well, well the you're not really going anywhere, because these two sides have two different agendas and are going in two different directions, so you end up having things be the same as they have always been, they negate eachother

The US political system of two parties is truly screwed up.

But with respect to your question of why someone with absolute power would allow others to make decisions, I can answer from my own experience.

When I was working in a factory, I got a promotion to Production Manager, my first real position of power. It happened on a Friday, and my first thought was, "Bwahahahah! Power!" and then I realized that the guys would probably cause me to have an "accident" if I acted like that. So, on Monday morning I came up with the idea that I was on a football team and I was the water boy, making sure that the production guys, who were the real stars, had everything they needed to do their jobs. I started that job with that philosophy, and it turned out great.

I also learned something else. I had a degree in Astrophysics from a very good school, and the guys working for me probably had HS diplomas, about half of them, anyway. I would give them an assignment and would let them figure out how to accomplish it. I'd review it with them during a planning session which also determined what they would need to do the job, how long it would take, what it would cost, etc.

And something happened that really surprised me. The guys consistently came up with ways to do their jobs which were much better than anything I ever could have thought of, no matter how long I spend thinking. I realized that a group is stronger than one guy, especially when everyone is assured that their voice will be heard and their suggestions valued and respected.

So I listen to the majority because I get better outcomes that way. I have to humble myself and give up the sense that I'm always right (actually, I've been keeping score and I'm right about 30% of the time), but the democratic outcomes put us ahead of the competition. I should add that I don't always end up doing what I think is best, and that is very hard to do.

A manager's output is the output of the people working for him. A leader's output can be much greater than than, but you can't lead someone to any place they don't want to go.

[Chthonic Daydream]

The US political system of two parties is truly screwed up.

But with respect to your question of why someone with absolute power would allow others to make decisions, I can answer from my own experience.

When I was working in a factory, I got a promotion to Production Manager, my first real position of power. It happened on a Friday, and my first thought was, "Bwahahahah! Power!" and then I realized that the guys would probably cause me to have an "accident" if I acted like that. So, on Monday morning I came up with the idea that I was on a football team and I was the water boy, making sure that the production guys, who were the real stars, had everything they needed to do their jobs. I started that job with that philosophy, and it turned out great.

I also learned something else. I had a degree in Astrophysics from a very good school, and the guys working for me probably had HS diplomas, about half of them, anyway. I would give them an assignment and would let them figure out how to accomplish it. I'd review it with them during a planning session which also determined what they would need to do the job, how long it would take, what it would cost, etc.

And something happened that really surprised me. The guys consistently came up with ways to do their jobs which were much better than anything I ever could have thought of, no matter how long I spend thinking. I realized that a group is stronger than one guy, especially when everyone is assured that their voice will be heard and their suggestions valued and respected.

So I listen to the majority because I get better outcomes that way. I have to humble myself and give up the sense that I'm always right (actually, I've been keeping score and I'm right about 30% of the time), but the democratic outcomes put us ahead of the competition. I should add that I don't always end up doing what I think is best, and that is very hard to do.

A manager's output is the output of the people working for him. A leader's output can be much greater than than, but you can't lead someone to any place they don't want to go.

A non-tyrannical ENTj?
Is this real life?
Pinch me.

[Raver]

I think society is gradually progressing towards aristocratic from democratic nowadays if you pay any attention to current events. You can't offend X group because of their ethnicity, gender or another factor.

Y group has it better than X so you are allowed to bring them down, while bolstering X up. Hardly anyone bats any eye on this kind of behavior due to either mindlessly accepting it or out of fear of repercussions.

In the end of the day it is evidence of the transition from a democratic to totalitarian society. It happens in a way that most can't notice. If you can get people to police each other then it makes it a lot easier to control the populace indirectly.

Anyways, I think a lot of people don't neatly fit into aristocratic or democratic labels and can have specific beliefs that apply to either depending on the situation. Person A may believe in censorship towards X, but not Y, while person B believes in censorship towards Y, but not X.

I think even in Socionics you can have people of any type belonging to either group or perhaps even sharing traits from both due to non-Socionics factors so the dichotomy should not be looked at religiously for that reason IMO.

[Aramas]

Freethought was the foundation of liberal democracy, where rationality was the basis for legitimate power. Question dogmatic(irrational, therefore, illigitimate) ideas tied to power. It's an open ended question that constantly needs to be defended. No one has a right to call someone "a ******". That is misunderstanding what rights are intended for. We have seen the cultural rejection of Enlightenment principles and the virtues associated with freethought. Free speech has become the expression of one's passion on a wim and is shallow.

Nobody has rights. They are just ink on paper.

[Adam Strange]

A non-tyrannical ENTj?
Is this real life?
Pinch me.

I know a bunch of LIE's in real life, and the two who are the least tyrannical are the most successful.

Even I can learn what works.

[Skepsis]

@Aramas Tell that to those who think they have a right to rule over others. Groups have a natural right to choose their leaders.

[Adam Strange]

That's an interesting take on it. Do you think it's the same with the world at large? Do you think the elites delegate decision making to the population to save themselves from having to think so much? That makes total sense actually. Even if these guys have complete power over us, I guess it's still easier for them to make us self sustain so they won't have to micro manage everything. And I guess ultimately they can't even micro manage everything if they wanted to. And just because they have power doesn't mean they have to be smarter than us, considering how many people there are in the world, chances are that the smartest people will be born in the middle class, so they should really make use of those people to optimize society, and in order to do that they need to give them autonomy

Well, that is what I believe too.

Take the school system. It is designed to propagate the class structure, to impress on people that their outcomes are their fault, and to suppress revolution. (It also moves the cost of educating a work force from the factory owners to the workers themselves. Lol.) It doesn't need a lot of active input from the rich to do its job.

Schools in the US are funded by local property taxes. Rich neighborhoods get the good schools, poor neighborhoods get the bad schools, the rich stay rich and class remains and the way to convince people that this is good for them is to tell them it gives them "local control" over the schools. Bwaahhhhhahhaahahhha!

Everyone goes to school, and everyone is graded on how well they fit into the system. Students are told that if they don't do well with the system (and there are no alternatives - M. Thatcher, famous LIE and shill for the rich) then IT IS THEIR OWN FAULT. Get those kids early. Bwaahahhahahahh!

Finally, yes, smart and politically dangerous people arise from all classes. If these people are born into a lower class, they can be real threats to the system, because the system has clearly failed them and they see that and are going to do something about it.
BUT, it takes two things to make a revolutionary who is a real danger. One is intelligence and the knowledge that they are being screwed and that they can do something about it, and this info can be simply off the table of what is discussed in school. You can't choose something if you don't know it's an option.
Two is that these people have to be active. They have to work hard and actually do something, otherwise they are just sitting around griping or voting for the fake political choices that the ruling class puts up. If a kid is both smart and active, then they are a real danger, but the schools have an answer for that. It is called scholarships. A scholarship can bring a guy from the lower classes into the upper class and basically co-opt him and make him no longer a threat.
Do you need the laugh here?

What eventually happens is that society gets more unequal and more dysfunctional as the rich idiots circle the wagons and move into their protected enclaves. Eventually, things go seriously wrong for the rich and they effectively squander their wealth but not their power and the Muslims attack Constantinople or the Reds attack the Monarchy or the poor surround the cities in Syria and the whole place burns. Rinse, repeat.

[Sol]

Very true. for a long time, I wondered why democracy was having better outcomes than an enlightened dictatorship.

It's the question of aims, techological means for centralized control and the quality of dictator's person (mad one would be a tragedy). It's not absolute when decentralized systems are more effective.
People may try to imagine what would look a democracy on a factory or in army.

Besides the organisation, also the quality of wide masses thinking is important, as when the most are "not good" they'll decide respectively. Democracy needs highly and widely developed personalities of the most, in other case they'll get only an illusion of power like in "democratic" USA and Europe.

And the other problem is antagonism between dictators/aristoracy and the masses, as they to keep own control and privileges tend to keep masses as weaker, including morally and intellectually, to indoctrinate them paternalism to keep them separated, irrationally to obbey to ideas supporting the current state or to make it worse for masses.

Seems there are cyclic processes, when masses develop and later degrade. Depending on the technology changes. When something "good" appears - the masses use it to develop and such to get more power, then aristoracy finds ways to return the control and supresses the masses (though some progress stays anyway). There are technological cyclic processes in economy, probably similar happens in the socium.

or the Reds attack the Monarchy

The monarchy in Russia was removed in Februrary, mostly by liberal bourgeoisie, not by "red" socialists.

> or the poor surround the cities in Syria and the whole place burns.

The poor are everywhere. The place burned because of USA's military help (including indirectly) to islamists. And what those benefactors done under the flag of religion is just the destruction and even more of poverty. No one would allow them to do good, as USA need weakened nations and territory to get what they need easier. Under the rule of semi-arab Hussein-Abama was made a lot to destroy normal life and advancing of Arab nations.

[at sirac son of sirac]

I think our system is crap but I struggle to see how there could be a better one.

I do think life used to be simpler, but you can't 'undo' technology.

[Chthonic Daydream]

Let's revert back to the '60s up until '90s please

[wacey]

Cool OP. I neither agree nor disagree with it.

[Skepsis]

@Chains Be careful with that eldritch wisdom, it decreases your frenzy resistance

All I need is something to calm the nerves.....

[Bertrand]

its silly to say censorship is permissible because everyone tries to censor (by reading "censorship" into every "winning" argument) because it implies that while censorship is bad, its simply unavoidable, but it makes it unavoidable by defining censorship as being present in even things that are not considered censorship. in other words killing someone is not the same as proving them wrong, one is force and the other is reason. while force has the same ultimate result (well viewed purely in terms of "getting my way" in the next 5 seconds), it is not the result that makes censorship censorship it is the prohibitation of speech through coercive means (against their will). regular winning arguments everyone gets their say and no one is coerced into silence, rather if their argument is of no effect its not because someone silenced them but because no one found it persuasive. alowing people to decide on information for themselves is fundamentally democratic. this idea that everyone censors is just a cheap justification for something they already know is bad. its like even if it were true you still can't jump from "everyone does x" to "x is morally preferable" everyone lies, lies are still bad, etc

it basically comes down to not wanting to rule out any tools that might be useful, but its useful as to who? the aspiring aristocrats. censorship is fundamentally not-useful to people in general over long periods of time, this is precisely what history has demonstrated. what is particularly pernicious is when small groups of aristocrats deign to speak for humanity because they can launder their self serving intent and ultimately destructive methods under the guise that that is not what's happening because its all under the banner of the "betterment of humanity" its like fucking for peace. its exactly how the right wing has scammed much of the lower classes into voting for policies against their own interest and against the interest of everyone except a small group of kleptocrats. it creates a linguistic construction of hope and then acts in ways manifestly guranteed to preclude the promised result. they're only trying to ride out the scam long enough to live and die at the top and fundamentally ignore the consequences for anyone else and time periods beyond their own (see: Trump). this is what makes their sloganeering about global revolution and so forth so empty and ironic, its the opposite of global when viewed in time

[at sirac son of sirac]

its silly to say censorship is permissible because everyone tries to censor (by reading "censorship" into every "winning" argument) because it implies that while censorship is bad, its simply unavoidable, but it makes it unavoidable by defining censorship as being present in even things that are not considered censorship. in other words killing someone is not the same as proving them wrong, one is force and the other is reason. while force has the same ultimate result (well viewed purely in terms of "getting my way" in the next 5 seconds), it is not the result that makes censorship censorship it is the prohibitation of speech through coercive means (against their will). regular winning arguments everyone gets their say and no one is coerced into silence, rather if their argument is of no effect its not because someone silenced them but because no one found it persuasive. alowing people to decide on information for themselves is fundamentally democratic. this idea that everyone censors is just a cheap justification for something they already know is bad. its like even if it were true you still can't jump from "everyone does x" to "x is morally preferable" everyone lies, lies are still bad, etc

it basically comes down to not wanting to rule out any tools that might be useful, but its useful as to who? the aspiring aristocrats. censorship is fundamentally not-useful to people in general over long periods of time, this is precisely what history has demonstrated. what is particularly pernicious is when small groups of aristocrats deign to speak for humanity because they can launder their self serving intent and ultimately destructive methods under the guise that that is not what's happening because its all under the banner of the "betterment of humanity" its like fucking for peace. its exactly how the right wing has scammed much of the lower classes into voting for policies against their own interest and against the interest of everyone except a small group of kleptocrats. it creates a linguistic construction of hope and then acts in ways manifestly guranteed to preclude the promised result. they're only trying to ride out the scam long enough to live and die at the top and fundamentally ignore the consequences for anyone else and time periods beyond their own (see: Trump). this is what makes their sloganeering about global revolution and so forth so empty and ironic, its the opposite of global when viewed in time

If people are or should be allowed to make the decisions themselves based on unfiltered information, then how do you do that? Marketing is designed to target people so that they make choices that they otherwise would not have made, without realizing they've been influenced.

So, to make information truly fair and impartial, you'd have to censor how that information was relayed to people - which is the exact problem with censorship in the first place.

I know you won't agree with this, because you love to argue, but your premise and subsequent reason is ill thought out and juvenile.

[Bertrand]

are you really saying that marketing justifies censorship because marketing itself is an already existing infringement on free will, so we may as well go all the way? also making a choice you otherwise would not have made is not the same thing as being coerced into that choice, its called being "given the option." again you confuse the process with the result. just because marketing and censorship may superficially result in someone doing something in accordance with someone else's will, they are qualitatively different. that is precisely the point. implicit in your argument is that people are too stupid to make a free choice because of marketing and so censorship is just as much to protect them and counterbalance their own stupidity. its literally a dim view on humanity. by your own logic I should be able to dictate to you whats real because I know better, and you're just being manipulated by lies if I don't enforce the truth. something tells me you would not like that in practice. out of the same side you defend censorship you argue on the basis of implicit values that recognize your personal right not to be censored. that's what so messed up about aristocracy is it argues policies that the aristocrats except themselves from, from the position of the bottom (they are the perennial "temporarily disadvantaged future rich people" making policy from the bottom as if they were on top), this illusory sense of superiority is precisely what keeps them on the bottom because they continually vote against their own self interest (one form of this is racism--"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."). its like in no way shape or form does your argument hold up because the fact you're choosing to make it militates against your point, it implicitly acknowledges the validity of argument and free will

the bottom line is, even though you are correct that many people cannot make good decisions and therefore too much information is detrimental to them, since they tend to choose poorly (you are one of them), it doesn't mean you should restrict information as to all people, because you fundamentally need those people who can discern truth from lies to have access to all the information. this is precisely what the censors are most afraid of. their concern for the common man is just pretense in order to not be found out. if their shit holds up there's no reason to hold anything back. if your population is so dumb that if you don't censor mein kampf they all become nazis then your population is hopelessly corrupt anyway and no amount of censorship is going to transform them into good people. if your population is so dumb they cannot discern marketing that is fundamentally not a good buy, then they're too stupid to make just as many other decisions because "marketing" is a fact of life, not just something on tv. its called being able to assess the true value of things, which is a life skill that existed prior to "marketing" and taking away marketing does not create the result having actual discernment confers. again, this "care" for the well being of others is just pretense to dehumanize them and generally imply they're unable to govern themselves without someone deciding what information is safe for them to handle

the great thing about most of these types is they're in no position to ever enact these schemes because LBJ was right, these modes of thinking just make them especially susceptible to be pacified by prejudicial forms of thought and controlled from the top down. in a weird way, they demand that they be handled aristocratically, even though democrats don't actually want to. its sometimes the only way to cordon them off from making the place into an authoritarian shithole, but its their choice to be that way

[Aramas]

@Aramas Tell that to those who think they have a right to rule over others. Groups have a natural right to choose their leaders.

Natural right.... Natural Law? Do such things exist?

[Bertrand]

mind blown

if there are no such thing as natural rights then the result is we can do whatever we want, which is, you guessed it, a natural right. it just shifts the accent from Ne to Se and so on

[at sirac son of sirac]

It's survival of the fattest.

[Skepsis]

Natural right.... Natural Law? Do such things exist?

Natural rights exist as an idea and were discovered by trying to understand what the purpose of government is. Government isn't instated by the heavens for the masses to follow. This is an untruth used to control the masses and to give power to the few over the many; it is self-serving. Government is an idea invented by humans to make things happen in our affairs. It requires a large network of interdependent individuals working together to attain goals, support life, and encourage flourishing. There aren't any followers without a leader and no leader without the followers, but this exists because it is more efficient to have a leader. Imbalances exist in a society when resources and power become so uneven that the power stays in the hands of the few and then they are no longer working for the interests of the group. Now this is often taken for granted and these leaders feel they are extra special, gifted, and superior. Very few leaders become so by bossing everyone around and claiming authority. If you tried that, you would just get the shit kicked out of you. Power is given to few with the idea that they are doing something for the group that cannot be accomplished as well collectively. One voice carries more clearly than a hundred different ones. It is all usually built by earning and establishing trust. However, once this power changes hands, as it inevitably does, it matters to whom.

Natural rights are real in the sense that the idea itself has meaning and utility for people. They insure that the leader is kept in check and remembers the contract between our government and its people.

[Aramas]

Natural rights exist as an idea and were discovered by trying to understand what the purpose of government is. Government isn't instated by the heavens for the masses to follow. This is an untruth used to control the masses and to give power to the few over the many; it is self-serving. Government is an idea invented by humans to make things happen in our affairs. It requires a large network of interdependent individuals working together to attain goals, support life, and encourage flourishing. There aren't any followers without a leader and no leader without the followers, but this exists because it is more efficient to have a leader. Imbalances exist in a society when resources and power become so uneven that the power stays in the hands of the few and then they are no longer working for the interests of the group. Now this is often taken for granted and these leaders feel they are extra special, gifted, and superior. Very few leaders become so by bossing everyone around and claiming authority. If you tried that, you would just get the shit kicked out of you. Power is given to few with the idea that they are doing something for the group that cannot be accomplished as well collectively. One voice carries more clearly than a hundred different ones. It is all usually built by earning and establishing trust. However, once this power changes hands, as it inevitably does, it matters to whom.

Natural rights are real in the sense that the idea itself has meaning and utility for people. They insure that the leader is kept in check and remembers the contract between our government and its people.

But they aren't really real in the sense that they aren't more than an idea

[Delilah]

But they aren't really real in the sense that they aren't more than an idea

What a strange idea! An idea is quite real.

[Aramas]

What a strange idea! An idea is quite real.

The only thing that's real to me is physical reality. Lol. Ideas can affect reality but they aren't the same thing.