So I was responding to the parent statement, he said when there’s disinformation democracy doesn’t work. Well in order to avoid disinformation, you need strong control of information flow. That sounds a lot like a dictatorship. The people you vote for control what you know about them, that’s not democracy. So if democracy doesn’t work because people lie, and democracy doesn’t work if information is controlled, then democracy doesn’t work, right? Interestingly, he confirmed lower in the thread that he does not believe in democracy.

I’m with you, all news is controlled propaganda. I don’t follow any of it as a result. It is sad, but all we can do is try to live in the world we are in. I don’t let it get me depressed, I just carry on.

An anarchy is an environment where no one controls the application of force. Information has nothing to do with it.

Seems to me you don’t like democracy and only use it as a means to an end.

Well, that’s dismissive. You don’t think that these people are reacting to genuine concerns they have? Not even some of them, some of their concerns?

In an environment where nobody controls the information, people will lie. If democracy doesn’t work when information flows freely, doesn’t that mean democracy doesn’t work?

1. I didn’t call it an america Russia war,

2. I mentioned Japan.

You’re talking about world war 2 right?

Sure, but that’s not how it starts usually.

Because it was deliberately designed to instill a certain sense about history.

The term “world war” is a propaganda term. First, the only reason the world was involved was because the world was mostly colonies of the belligerents. In reality it was a European war, and European holdings were involved due to their economics.

In the second one, there were 2 distinct wars where the belligerents were allied for strategic reasons. The US was at war with Japan and Europe was at war.

Since the end, peace has been held with a bunch of strategic alliances, so in any real war, all countries take sides. But with the current 2 notable wars going on, it appears that that alliance structure is breaking down. Alliances are not in line with the economic realities of these countries. The more real things get the less these alliances will hold. This is probably a good thing, as it prevents everything from getting out of hand.

The term “world war” is a propaganda term. First, the only reason the world was involved was because the world was mostly colonies of the belligerents. In reality it was a European war, and European holdings were involved due to their economics.

In the second one, there were 2 distinct wars where the belligerents were allied for strategic reasons. The US was at war with Japan and Europe was at war.

Since the end, peace has been held with a bunch of strategic alliances, so in any real war, all countries take sides. But with the current 2 notable wars going on, it appears that that alliance structure is breaking down. Alliances are not in line with the economic realities of these countries. The more real things get the less these alliances will hold. This is probably a good thing, as it prevents everything from getting out of hand.

When people feel ignored in a democratic country, they begin to feel like the democracy they live in is a sham or that democracy itself doesn’t work.

Votes like this aren’t necessarily about “we need a different direction” and more about desperation and/or anger. They want to show the elites of their country that they still have the power, they want to cost them something for treating the population like it’s there to be harvested from, they want to shake up the status quo at all cost.

They want to prove to themselves that their vote still matters.

Letting it get to this point is really bad governance. Once you get here, either they win, or they don’t. And of they don’t, most of the people who support them have their suspicions confirmed, they don’t live in a democracy, they voted and didn’t get what they want, again. This creates a division that is difficult to come back from.

How so? The parties they’re competing against are incumbents, and often, there are laws preventing them from campaigning. If anything they’re at a disadvantage policitally, and yet they’re winning. Obviously, what they’re offering is popular for some reason.

Well, they win because they get votes, what is it that they’re unhappy with that they’re drawn to the potential leadership of these parties? I’d start with that. These are democracies, so these parties can’t gain power unless they offer the citizenry of their countries something they want.

Diagnosing me with a disorder lol OK.

Alright, let me ask you, benefit of the doubt and all that. What do you think about people that seek to control others? And why do you completely ignore what it is I’m actually saying and focus on what words you would like banned?

I said that those who seek power over others are subhuman scum. Curious you took it personally.

I’m not a racist, but you know that already and just like to shout insults at people because your ideas cannot stand on their own merit and everything is a means to an end to you. You’re a con.

People who seek to dominate others are subhuman scum, I don’t think I’ll get a lot of disagreement on that.

Well, often Nostr clients are open source and have no telemetry. I personally prefer native applications when I can verify that that is the case.

Of course. You’re one of them. Got it.

“On principle what specific words do you want to say” lol yeah OK. You need to go understand what “principle” means, by definition it ignores specific circumstances.

When what I can say is subject to someone else’s dictat, de facto they have power over me. The interesting thing about that is that the kind of people that seek that out aren’t the kind of people who wield it wisely or fairly. I avoid giving others power over me, I can’t always prevent it, but I avoid it where I can. That’s the principle we are talking about, whether I want to give someone that power, not whether I agree with them on what words should be said. And that’s what this whole speech shit is about, not words, it’s about power. Generally I would agree with those people on what words should not be said, what I don’t agree with is giving them the power to tell me or other people that we can’t say them. I used to do the compromise thing, but those people inevitably overreach and begin to try to control what ideas are allowed to be discussed, because again, it’s about power and they’re power hungry subhuman scum who just want to dominate others.

No matter where you go on fedi, it’s one type of toxic or another. Either it’s people shouting the n word, or it’s people sharing drawings (at best) of little kids, or it’s power hungry subhuman scum who just want to dominate others. It’s an architectural problem endemic to the federated network architecture. So I prefer an architecture with less discoverability but which gives the user the power to censor their own feed how they see fit. There’s no real reach on either, but at least people can have their echo chambers and nobody can lean on the architecture to silence the people they don’t like.

It’s not about what I want to say lol typical. Take a conversation about principle and imply that I want to shout slurs.

You don’t have the right to dictate to me what I can say out loud, period.