Brexit and General UK politics thread

[EnterpriseSovereign]

It's illuminating how many people on social media seem to think no-deal and leaving on WTO terms is actually a good thing, not many realise that the WTO rules aren't the silver bullet they've been looking for.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

It's illuminating how many people on social media seem to think no-deal and leaving on WTO terms is actually a good thing, not many realise that the WTO rules aren't the silver bullet they've been looking for.

The thing is that as of late, nations are finding that social media is a vulnerability to the democratic process, especially with the Mueller investigation showing that Russia has been using sophisticated 'Active Measures' programs that strike in a multitude of directions to at least ensure that their enemies are weakened and vulnerable. Control the discourse on social media, you can literally control the opinions on any matter.

That and we're living in a world where ideals and fiction are replacing reality and pragmatism in terms of political discourse.

[The Romulan Republic]

The problem with your "censor social media to save democracy" argument is that censoring social media would set precedents regarding freedom of the press and freedom of expression that would also be deeply destructive to democracy.

No, what we need to do is figure out how to use social media to counter attack, to convey our own message more effectively. Not merely silencing their propaganda, but being better at disseminating our counterpropaganda. There has to be a way to make truth, equality, and justice as appealing as resentment, fear, and hate.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

The problem with your "censor social media to save democracy" argument is that censoring social media would set precedents regarding freedom of the press and freedom of expression that would also be deeply destructive to democracy.

No, what we need to do is figure out how to use social media to counter attack, to convey our own message more effectively. Not merely silencing their propaganda, but being better at disseminating our counterpropaganda. There has to be a way to make truth, equality, and justice as appealing as resentment, fear, and hate.

Problem, you are assuming wrong, especially in our current technological context and the fact that Huxley is right all along.

Our technological context of an unregulated internet and the fact that we've outstripped the human capacity for information input makes censorship and regulation the only available option. Any 'counter-propaganda' we make will be drowned out by the information equivalent of white noise... and as such we'll have to use censorship and internet regulation.

[Batman]

Why would that be so? Surely if one side can produce 'white noise' as you claim...the other side can produce the same amount of propaganda.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Why would that be so? Surely if one side can produce 'white noise' as you claim...the other side can produce the same amount of propaganda.

That is not entirely correct. The best way to equate information warfare is electronic warfare. You throw enough electronic 'noise' that the enemy can't see squat. That is what allowing this 'white noise' information generation is doing, even propaganda won't work if it's only drowned out by the information equivalent of an electronic jammer, that is if the algorithms aren't taken into account.

In the lust for profit, the social media networks have made it impossible for propaganda to be countered because of personal bias. Personal bias is hooked up to these algorithms and only allows you to see what you want to see. So, you'll have to regulate out these algorithms in order for that propaganda to have any meaningful effect...

[Batman]

The term 'hogwash' comes to mind. One side can do it, the other side can do it. Unless you want to argue one side controls social media?

[The Romulan Republic]

The problem with your "censor social media to save democracy" argument is that censoring social media would set precedents regarding freedom of the press and freedom of expression that would also be deeply destructive to democracy.

No, what we need to do is figure out how to use social media to counter attack, to convey our own message more effectively. Not merely silencing their propaganda, but being better at disseminating our counterpropaganda. There has to be a way to make truth, equality, and justice as appealing as resentment, fear, and hate.

Problem, you are assuming wrong, especially in our current technological context and the fact that Huxley is right all along.

Our technological context of an unregulated internet and the fact that we've outstripped the human capacity for information input makes censorship and regulation the only available option. Any 'counter-propaganda' we make will be drowned out by the information equivalent of white noise... and as such we'll have to use censorship and internet regulation.

"We have to get rid of freedom to protect freedom, because the unwashed masses are too stupid to be trusted with self-government."

Spoken like a true despot. And also a dupe, since discrediting ideas like freedom of expression is undoubtably a big part of what Putin hoped to achieve here. Ultimately, you are attacking democracy as well, because giving the people the freedom to choose their government is meaningless if its not an informed choice. And its not an informed choice if the information they receive is carefully filtered by the elites to make sure that they only hear what the elites have decided they need to/should hear. And don't imagine for a second that that double-edged sword won't be turned back on us. How in God's name you can look at the current US government and think "that government should be trusted with the power to massively censor the media and speech of citizens" is beyond my comprehension. I can at least understand how a very short-sighted person might support vast censorship when their side was in power (if they ignored all of historical precedent and believed that the wheel would stop turning this time), but to support it when your side doesn't hold all the cards is simply self-destructively foolish. If the US government gained the power of broad censorship, both of major media outlets and ordinary citizens' conversations on social media, it would not be the Alt. Reich or Putin who would be on the receiving end of most of the censorship, if historical precedent and basic logic are anything to go by. It would be progressives, socialists, minorities, liberals, dissenters, whistleblowers, and critics of the President. For God's sake, this is a President who has repeatedly, publicly stated his desire to tighten libel laws so he can sue his critics. And you want to hand him, or the next person like him, that power? Do you understand that when you give a government those powers, establish that precedent (which would require a Constitutional amendment repealing or modifying the First Amendment in any case to be legal), you don't just get to turn them on and off like a light switch when its convenient to you? They're there- free to be abused by the next person with more ambition than scruples who comes along.

In any case, we arguably don't even need to expand censorship to crack down on foreign interference. Just identify it and shut it down using existing laws (foreign interference in an election is already illegal).

If you just like the idea of being able to forcibly silence people you find offensive, then say so. But don't pretend that its in the interests of democracy. I know you don't like Orwell, but "Freedom is slavery" seems like a pretty good characterization of your position.

Also, what Batman said.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Problem, you are assuming wrong, especially in our current technological context and the fact that Huxley is right all along.

Our technological context of an unregulated internet and the fact that we've outstripped the human capacity for information input makes censorship and regulation the only available option. Any 'counter-propaganda' we make will be drowned out by the information equivalent of white noise... and as such we'll have to use censorship and internet regulation.

"We have to get rid of freedom to protect freedom, because the unwashed masses are too stupid to be trusted with self-government."

Spoken like a true despot. And also a dupe, since discrediting ideas like freedom of expression is undoubtably a big part of what Putin hoped to achieve here. Ultimately, you are attacking democracy as well, because giving the people the freedom to choose their government is meaningless if its not an informed choice. And its not an informed choice if the information they receive is carefully filtered by the elites to make sure that they only hear what the elites have decided they need to/should hear. And don't imagine for a second that that double-edged sword won't be turned back on us. How in God's name you can look at the current US government and think "that government should be trusted with the power to massively censor the media and speech of citizens" is beyond my comprehension. I can at least understand how a very short-sighted person might support vast censorship when their side was in power (if they ignored all of historical precedent and believed that the wheel would stop turning this time), but to support it when your side doesn't hold all the cards is simply self-destructively foolish. If the US government gained the power of broad censorship, both of major media outlets and ordinary citizens' conversations on social media, it would not be the Alt. Reich or Putin who would be on the receiving end of most of the censorship, if historical precedent and basic logic are anything to go by. It would be progressives, socialists, minorities, liberals, dissenters, whistleblowers, and critics of the President. For God's sake, this is a President who has repeatedly, publicly stated his desire to tighten libel laws so he can sue his critics. And you want to hand him, or the next person like him, that power? Do you understand that when you give a government those powers, establish that precedent (which would require a Constitutional amendment repealing or modifying the First Amendment in any case to be legal), you don't just get to turn them on and off like a light switch when its convenient to you? They're there- free to be abused by the next person with more ambition than scruples who comes along.

In any case, we arguably don't even need to expand censorship to crack down on foreign interference. Just identify it and shut it down using existing laws (foreign interference in an election is already illegal).

If you just like the idea of being able to forcibly silence people you find offensive, then say so. But don't pretend that its in the interests of democracy. I know you don't like Orwell, but "Freedom is slavery" seems like a pretty good characterization of your position.

Also, what Batman said.

No, you are sadly wrong. Rights and freedoms have always been fluid in definition and scope. May I remind you that for quite some time it was considered a right to own another person... until it didn't when the technological context made it abhorrent.

The problem is that rights and freedoms have always relied on the technological context and the technological context doesn't support the rights and freedoms of 'freedom of speech', 'right to privacy', and 'freedom of information' (at least, in the previous assumption/preconception of scope). Then there is the fact that our assumptions and preconceptions have almost always been shattered and annihilated by the evolution of technology. All democracies require a certain level of understanding of the overall situation(s) to function properly, and with our technological context it isn't possible especially without regulation of information.

To quote a rather knowledgeable forum insect on the subject of privacy (and many of it's arguments can go pretty much every freedom and right):

Between 1990 and today we went from digital cameras costing thousands of dollars and being the size of your head; too costing about 1 cent, are smaller than a fingernail, and everyone having at least one in their pocket at all times directly linked too a global information network upon which many people voluntarily post dozens of pictures every day that are analyzed by hundreds of information analysis programs.

Cameras are getting smaller and cheaper at a geometric rate, facial recognition software has gone from being computer intensive and unreliable, too highly reliable and processing efficient. Internet companies track your identity, interests and purchases simply too advertise too you better.

Human population is plateauing and we are congregating in dense cities while computers are increasing in power, efficiency and number all the time. We will reach a point in the first half of this century where the amount of sensors in a city is so great that the data floating around the net is sufficient too build a full picture of someones life in real time.


In a few decades you will reach the point where sensors are basically smart dust, incorporated into virtually everything; not leaving an easily identifiable trace of your life with such sensor density will be impossible.


The panopticon is a technological inevitability, it is basically the most sure thing we can predict about the coming century.
_____
The fear mongering in this thread



Dictatorships rely on secrets, denial of information and concentration of force; when the government is as exposed as the people it becomes very difficult for them too amass the power needed too become a dictatorship without being overthrown before they reach critical mass. A dictatorship always relies on a force of loyal enforcers smaller than the populace they try too oppress, when the movements and organization of this force are impossible too mask it becomes much easier too avoid and out maneuver them. With equal degree of omni-surveillance available too both sides it becomes a numbers game which the populace inevitably wins.

Secret organizations coming in the dark of night too drag away dissenters and throw them into a dark hole only works if the organizations are secret and they can't be tracked




Look it's a technological inevitability that a Panopticon will arise, so we should have a rational discussion (not FEAR FEAR FEAR DOOM) about how society and government should adapt too having a fair and free society in a post-privacy world


There are certainly an enormous number of benefits too a society that can see and record everything. Disasters, crime and accidents become far easier too control and reduce; emergency services can be dispatched the second someone is in trouble; corruption, blackmail and bribery become impossibly hard too pull off without reprisal. Constant monitoring of infrastructure, energy use, transportation, ect allows for vast increase in efficiency of all systems. Diseases and toxins can be tracked in real time, outbreaks that would cause great epidemics isolated quickly and all potential vectors shutoff and tested/cleaned.

The knowledge in the back of your mind that you are potentially being watched and judged will cause people too act more civil too each other, or understand why someone is so upset if you can trawl back through their recent past (family abuse is annihilated in this post-privacy world, bullying, harassment you ain't getting away with that shit)



There is a fuckload of positives too an omnisurveilance society, yet you people seem to be obsessed with it being a terrifying dystopia
_____
Ahh yes the "Your argument falls apart entirely at this one nitpick and thus I don't have to address any of the other points you made"

Classic lazy debating and lack of in depth consideration

Governments already have to dedicate silly huge budgets too information security in crucially sensitive departments like intelligence, and already it is shown too be quite permeable relying more on employee compliance than an airtight information security system.

The vast majority of the government apparatus cannot afford such information security measures, it relies on thousands upon thousands of ordinary citizens working office jobs; how do you get anyone too work for you at a cost effective wage if you have too demand they are completely stripped of all electronic devices (which already are practically a part of people, in coming decades they will be basically an indispensable part of a persons being) just too work in a government department?

Governments are made up of people, unless you reduce everyone too mindless automatons or have a gun too their head at all times you aren't going too have a productive and cost effective workforce that is information tight. The only government departments that have scary effective info security are the ones like the CIA and NSA which have enormously drawn out vetting processes and pay their people HUGE salaries with bonuses and pensions too keep them happy and quiet, there is no way that the government can afford too pay everyone in the bureaucracy that handles information the wages of intelligence department workers, and certainly cannot have such complex hiring processes.


In the modern world government policy is already leaked as fast as it is created and the minutes of meetings end up available too people who are interested. The increasing pervasiveness of digital data recording and processing will make it much easier and faster for leaked tidbits of information too be collated together into a coherent picture and built into a story of government scandal


The government can certainly keep some things secret from the people in a surveillance society, with great effort and expense. But what is infeasible is the government keeping secrets on a large enough scale that it can have a secretive government apparatus large and effective enough too openly oppress the people for the evilz. The larger the government group the more difficult it is too keep information from leaking, and the rest of government that cannot afford too hide in super secret evil plotting bunkers will have adapted too operating in open non-secretive politics, their political advantage of full openness makes them very hard too nail down with blackmail and they will gain political support by crusading against the secretive totally not plotting evilz part of government sucking up so much public funds in its effort too hide from the public.

When the parts of government actually busy doing the governing and public relations shit have accepted full openness, they are not going too tolerate secret little government cartels, they become a brilliant target for demonstrating how open and trustworthy you are too the voting public. A poltician that has accepted openness and embraced it will be a terrifying force too fight as another politician/government entity with secrets, especially if secret plotting department relies on the open no-secrets politicians are in charge of dividing up the budget.
____________
Being a monster is entirely relative, we are deep in the dark world of moral relativity in this discussion; black and white morality in decision making becomes impossible


If technology advances too the point where rogue individuals or small groups can be an existential threat too orders of magnitude more people than belong too the group; via weapons of mass destruction, bio plagues, ecosystem crashers, climate sabotage, ect... then the moral calculus balances out too determine that preventing the destruction or grievous harm of vast numbers of people justifies certain actions that seen abhorrently immoral in their own right


It's basically the Trolley Problem but on a Nation State -> Civilization -> Species level depending on how dangerous the threat is.


If technology has developed too the point that small groups can cause vast destruction, then either civilization and the species is doomed; or civilization will adapt too contain and control such threats... by whatever means necessary



Omnipresent surveillance is at least the most morally neutral of countermeasures, it is passive and can detect such problem groups before they can become a major threat and authorities intervene in the most morally just way possible (arrests and psychological treatment) Groups that actually manage too build a threatening weapon will likely be spotted before they can deploy it in an effective manner and the Panopticon system can help authorities manage the emergency response causing the least harm possible too the innocent and the guilty alike.
_____________
The thing is that technology is shifting the balance of risk; biological weapons formerly took years of work and enormously expensive facilities, trial and error, and as a result only States could implement them. With genetics now programmable on computers, the developing field of digitally simulated biology, genetic strings being written in a computer, printed and inserted into cells too create new species... this is only the beginning. The technology and resources required too create a super-plague has gone from state level down too merely company level, and it is inevitably going too fall further too the point that very small groups of individuals can create highly dangerous engineered organisms with equipment and knowledge available too civilians.

There are plenty of omnicidal nuts out there, the people who advocate culling humanity as a cure too environmental exploitation of 'Mother Nature' Would you trust these sorts with the ability too cook up plagues?

So you are confidently asserting that threats too civilization can never come from anything less than full nation states How could you possibly justify this claim, history is rife with small groups or individuals that caused great catastrophes through their own selfish philosophically driven actions; even if the ultimate destructive force was the war machines of nation states it was non-state-aligned individuals who tipped the balance from rational diplomatic confrontation too armed conflict

[Batman]

There was like zero change in the technological context between 'slavery is okay' and 'slavery is bad' and that's with the US being a latecomer to 'slavery is bad'

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

There was like zero change in the technological context between 'slavery is okay' and 'slavery is bad' and that's with the US being a latecomer to 'slavery is bad'

Nope, slavery held on the longest because for the centuries that it was implemented (one way or another), the technological context allowed it to be viable. The only reason that the southern US held onto it for so long is cotton and the cotton gin, as the Founders saw that slavery was becoming economically obsolescent... but they didn't see the cotton gin coming...

[The Romulan Republic]

Going to "Slavery used to be okay!" as your rebuttal is not going to convince me that you are anything but a closet fascist, frankly.

If your argument is that all morality is relative and that rights can and should be freely discarded as it is convenient, you will not find a sympathetic audience in me. Governments may often operate that way, but it doesn't make it right. It was not "the technological context" that made slavery abhorrent. Yes, slavery was once accepted. It was never right. It was never right to kidnapping men, women and children, lock them in chains, sail them across the seas to a distant land where they would never see their families again, in conditions so hellish most of us can scarcely imagine them where many never survived the trip, to auction them like cattle, to beat them, to brand them, to rape them, to breed them like livestock, to deny them education and tear families apart, to have them hunted down with dogs if they dared to seek their freedom, to build an entire political and social system based around their subjugation, to commit Treason, overthrow democracy, and wage wars of aggression to keep them in chains, to deny their humanity because the shame of admitting it would be too great to bear, or because it was easier to grow rich and fat on their unpaid labour, to treat them as literal property, as literally inhuman, and to subject them to virtually every horror humankind is capable of devising, to leave a legacy of hatred and prejudice which infects the world like a cancer to this day...

It was never right, and no economic theory or technological change or realpolitik bullshit could ever make it right. The censorship you propose, as abhorrent and dangerous as it is, is like a petty misdemeanor next to the crime that is slavery.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Going to "Slavery used to be okay!" as your rebuttal is not going to convince me that you are anything but a closet fascist, frankly.

If your argument is that all morality is relative and that rights can and should be freely discarded as it is convenient, you will not find a sympathetic audience in me. Governments may often operate that way, but it doesn't make it right. It was not "the technological context" that made slavery abhorrent. Yes, slavery was once accepted. It was never right. It was never right to kidnapping men, women and children, lock them in chains, sail them across the seas to a distant land where they would never see their families again, in conditions so hellish most of us can scarcely imagine them where many never survived the trip, to auction them like cattle, to beat them, to brand them, to rape them, to breed them like livestock, to deny them education and tear families apart, to have them hunted down with dogs if they dared to seek their freedom, to build an entire political and social system based around their subjugation, to commit Treason, overthrow democracy, and wage wars of aggression to keep them in chains, to deny their humanity because the shame of admitting it would be too great to bear, or because it was easier to grow rich and fat on their unpaid labour, to treat them as literal property, as literally inhuman, and to subject them to virtually every horror humankind is capable of devising, to leave a legacy of hatred and prejudice which infects the world like a cancer to this day...

It was never right, and no economic theory or technological change or realpolitik bullshit could ever make it right. The censorship you propose, as abhorrent and dangerous as it is, is like a petty misdemeanor next to the crime that is slavery.

You are confusing the abhorrent absolute shitshow that is what has become synonymous with slavery with the original forms of slavery. People forget that there is more to slavery than what became the Southern Slave Plutocracy system.

[The Romulan Republic]

It is true that there were other forms of slavery, and perhaps you should have clarified which you were talking about, since you directly alluded to colonial/Southern slavery in the Americas, and that is the first thing most people will think of when you mention "slavery" today. Nonetheless, I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. But I still have difficulty in seeing how the owning of sapient beings as chattel could ever be defensible.

This is, however, straying rather off-topic. Not a moderator here, but might I suggest that if you wish to debate the morality of slavery (or the larger question of whether rights are merely an extension of the level of technology a society possesses), that you create another thread for that purpose? Preferably while outlining which form of slavery you wish to defend? Or I can do so, if you prefer. Frankly, it seems more suited to the science/logic/morality forum, at this point.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

It is true that there were other forms of slavery, and perhaps you should have clarified which you were talking about, since you directly alluded to colonial/Southern slavery in the Americas, and that is the first thing most people will think of when you mention "slavery" today. Nonetheless, I apologize for any misunderstanding on my part. But I still have difficulty in seeing how the owning of sapient beings as chattel could ever be defensible.

This is, however, straying rather off-topic. Not a moderator here, but might I suggest that if you wish to debate the morality of slavery (or the larger question of whether rights are merely an extension of the level of technology a society possesses), that you create another thread for that purpose? Preferably while outlining which form of slavery you wish to defend? Or I can do so, if you prefer. Frankly, it seems more suited to the science/logic/morality forum, at this point.

That would be prudent before the Mods come upon us like an angry god... I alluded to southern slavery because that's the only slavery that most people remember (Rome would consider the slavery practiced by the colonial/Southerners to be absolutely barbaric IMHO, given what I know of Roman slavery).

[Zaune]

Anyway, returning to the original topic...

I'm not saying it isn't a fine line to walk, but I have to admit I don't find "freedom of speech" a terribly compelling argument in defence of willfully dishonest and manipulative behaviour. Requiring some minimum degree of accuracy and verifiability in news reporting is not censorship: In fact I would argue it's the opposite of censorship by dint of requiring media outlets to report all the facts, even the ones that don't help support the narrative they want to push.

And while I'm on the record as being entirely fine with turning the Fascist Internationale's own tactics back on them, the idea of hiring mercenaries to use false identities to spread propaganda using tactics similar to the observed behaviour of cults is something I find thoroughly distasteful. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it anyway if that's what it takes, because the reintroduction of chattel slavery is likely to be the second worst consequence if we lose this fight, but I'd rather explore more civilised alternatives first.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Anyway, returning to the original topic...

I'm not saying it isn't a fine line to walk, but I have to admit I don't find "freedom of speech" a terribly compelling argument in defence of willfully dishonest and manipulative behaviour. Requiring some minimum degree of accuracy and verifiability in news reporting is not censorship: In fact I would argue it's the opposite of censorship by dint of requiring media outlets to report all the facts, even the ones that don't help support the narrative they want to push.

And while I'm on the record as being entirely fine with turning the Fascist Internationale's own tactics back on them, the idea of hiring mercenaries to use false identities to spread propaganda using tactics similar to the observed behaviour of cults is something I find thoroughly distasteful. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it anyway if that's what it takes, because the reintroduction of chattel slavery is likely to be the second worst consequence if we lose this fight, but I'd rather explore more civilised alternatives first.

Here's the thing, 'Freedom of Speech' in it's current definition assumes that at the end of the day all speech is equal when in reality it isn't. Some speech has no or negative value to civilization. Another assumption with freedom of speech and information is that bad ideas get blocked out in the 'marketplace of ideas', reality showed us it is the opposite. People forget that humans must be regulated, period end of story. Any other assumption only allows for shit like this and worse.

[Zaune]

Here's the thing, 'Freedom of Speech' in it's current definition assumes that at the end of the day all speech is equal when in reality it isn't. Some speech has no or negative value to civilization. Another assumption with freedom of speech and information is that bad ideas get blocked out in the 'marketplace of ideas', reality showed us it is the opposite. People forget that humans must be regulated, period end of story. Any other assumption only allows for shit like this and worse.

The problem with that is, what metric do you propose for determining what speech has zero or negative value? It's one thing to criminalise outright fabricating quotes or data to support your preferred ideology, but with anything less clear-cut than that the slippery slope is very steep indeed. You yourself pointed out that the popular consensus on what is and is not morally acceptable changes over time; to start criminalising certain ideas is a great way to make it very hard for laws to change to reflect those changes.

To put it more simply, there's no way to use the law to persecute people just for believing in white supremacy that couldn't be weaponised against people who believe in trans-inclusionary radical feminism, for one example.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

The problem with that is, what metric do you propose for determining what speech has zero or negative value? It's one thing to criminalise outright fabricating quotes or data to support your preferred ideology, but with anything less clear-cut than that the slippery slope is very steep indeed. You yourself pointed out that the popular consensus on what is and is not morally acceptable changes over time; to start criminalising certain ideas is a great way to make it very hard for laws to change to reflect those changes.

To put it more simply, there's no way to use the law to persecute people just for believing in white supremacy that couldn't be weaponised against people who believe in trans-inclusionary radical feminism, for one example.

The value of speech has is determined by how much it damages society as a whole (climate denial, Nazism, Imperialism, anti-human groups, and friends? forced to stay in the history books where they belong). You can't simply go after fabricating quotes or data anymore, as studies have shown that the tactic of 'hit them with facts' doesn't actually work. Not ever.

Problem is that your assumption of this being a 'slippery steep slope' is no longer an assumed truth, especially in our technological context and human nature. You forget that humans NEED regulation, and like any human construct you need to regulate the 'marketplace of ideas' with things like censorship and rules on what to publish. Look at what happened in the Weimar Republic before the Nazis took over, it was the epitome of 'marketplace of ideas' and it got subverted by the Nazis.

My political leanings are very authoritarian/regularizationian mind you (and Communist in the 'Capitalism is extremely sick, we must find a way to fix it' category).



Yeah, I'm that sort of guy.

[Zaune]

So who gets to decide which speech "damages society as a whole"? Are we supposed to set up some sort of committee that reviews the mission statement of every political organisation in existence and votes on whether or not to ban it? And if so then how do we decide the banning criteria, and choose who sits on the committee? And most importantly, how do we stop the aforementioned committee voting to outlaw every political organisation that questions the committee's decisions?

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

So who gets to decide which speech "damages society as a whole"? Are we supposed to set up some sort of committee that reviews the mission statement of every political organisation in existence and votes on whether or not to ban it? And if so then how do we decide the banning criteria, and choose who sits on the committee? And most importantly, how do we stop the aforementioned committee voting to outlaw every political organisation that questions the committee's decisions?

Sadly, I'm not a person with all the answers. I'm serious on that. However, we are no longer in a world where non-regulation (or older regulations and assumptions) is viable as well. That is a reality we must face. That is the greatest extent of what I know outside that there are ideologies that are a threat to humanity as a whole and they're getting the tech to carry said ideologies out.

However, I am going to stop this before I get called out by a mod for a derail. I'll probably make a thread on this sort of thing sooner or later...

[K. A. Pital]

If you have left wing leanings it is highly likely you get banned way before any Nazis, simply because you are a greater threat to the corporations.

Besides, banning speech or „forgetting“ has not worked either. Nazis can rebrand and go on; this happened in Germany with the AfD which is now a major force in parliament. Japan is remilitarising because they just „forgot“ they were fascist and eventually understood themselves as victims.

You can regulate a lot, sure, albeit the need to do so currently eludes me, but in the end, you must know banning has limited efficiency.

[The Romulan Republic]

Hell, the entire point of the "Alt. Right" is to rebrand white nationalism and neo-Nazism into something more palatable to the mainstream. The white supremacist who allegedly coined the term outright admitted this. Its why I generally refer to them as the Alt. Reich- because that's exactly what they are. They're Nazism rebranded.

[The Romulan Republic]

I've created a thread in Science, Logic, And Morality to continue the discussion reg. technology, rights, and slavery.

[Crazedwraith]

Donald TusK throws petrol on fire

European Council President Donald Tusk has said there is a "special place in hell" for "those who promoted Brexit without even a sketch of a plan of how to carry it safely".

He was speaking after talks with Irish premier Leo Varadkar in Brussels.

He said the EU would "insist" on the Irish backstop in any UK withdrawal deal to preserve peace.

But he and Mr Varadkar were preparing for the "possible fiasco" of a no-deal Brexit.

Mr Tusk's Twitter account tweeted the same words immediately afterwards.

The European Council president struck a sombre tone as he told reporters there were 50 days to go until the UK's exit from the European Union.

"I know that still a very great number of people in the UK, and on the continent, as well as in Ireland, wish for a reversal of this decision. I have always been with you, with all my heart.

"But the facts are unmistakable. At the moment, the pro-Brexit stance of the UK prime minister, and the Leader of the Opposition, rules out this question.

"Today, there is no political force and no effective leadership for Remain. I say this without satisfaction, but you can't argue with the facts."

Theresa May - who supported the UK staying in the EU during the 2016 EU referendum - is due to arrive in Brussels on Thursday to seek legal changes to the withdrawal deal she signed with the EU. She hopes these changes will help her get it through the UK Parliament.

Mr Tusk said that the other 27 EU members had decided in December that the withdrawal agreement was "not open for renegotiation".

He said: "I hope that tomorrow we will hear from Prime Minister May a realistic suggestion on how to end the impasse.... following the latest votes in the House of Commons."

Mr Tusk said the Irish border issue and the need to preserve the peace process remained the EU's "top priority".

"The EU is first and foremost a peace project," he said.

"We will not gamble with peace or put a sell-by date on reconciliation. This is why we insist on the backstop."

I mean I can't say he's wrong. But isn't supposed to show some tact and diplomacy, the berk?