If it needs to be banned, we’ve already failed as a society. Society should reject intolerance and value intelligence/knowledge. Giving anyone the ability to control speech. Gives the worst sort of person the absolute need to wield that ability.
This already assumes a generationally informed and educated populace, which is the end goal and wouldn’t really need any “systems” to improve information sources. Everyone participating would naturally reject falsehoods.
The difficulty is working out what system should exist in a world of massive morons.
I may be biased as an anarchist, but what about anarchism? Why would a flat, answerable government based largely on consent and mutual aid be a bad thing? Isn’t the current problem unanswerable people with too much power already. Why would we want to give them more power. That’s definitionally madness to me. If my ideals are any good, I think I should be able to convince them of that without force.
Our problem is that the establishment supports evil speech and suppresses truth. Yes, we’ve failed as a society. The establishment has always had the power to control speech. It’s not because we gave them that power.
Then if the establishment supports evil speech and is simultaneously also the only one capable of enforcing this. Why would you want to give them that power? Any establishment given that sort of power. Would instantly use it to suppress speech that is inconvenient to them.
Complex problems generally don’t have simple solutions. And anyone offering you a simple solution to a complex problem likely thinks you’re a fool.
Democracy is supposed to be allowed to exterminate evil. A theoretical outcome of democracy is less fascism with laws that prevent fascist power, with political campaigns promissing to erradicate demonic supremacist foreign control over the nation. It is genuinely that simple: Proposed laws to exterminate evil influence over establishment.
Just because something is technically a democracy doesn’t mean it has value. Any democracy that is not direct, accountable, or consenting. Isn’t much of a democracy. And democracy exterminates nothing. Any democracy that does, isn’t much of a democracy. Advocating for authoritarianism absolutely makes things less democratic though.
We didn’t get here overnight, and there is nothing we can do that would get us out of this position anytime soon. Especially not reducing democracy. It’s going to take a lot of hard work and cultural change. Teaching people to value understanding and knowledge. Only education can eradicate ignorance, but never completely.
democracy exterminates nothing. Any democracy that does, isn’t much of a democracy.
Permitting genocidal and economic fraud speech/lies, means that money is not just speech. Money is terrorism, fascism, fraud. Those with the most money determine establishment through media control, and permitted electability. Exterminating genocide advocacy (replacement theory is genocide of immigrants before their kids can be allowed to vote for universal healthcare), and exterminating trickle down oligarchist fascism lies, is the only option for democracy. People are fundamentally too stupid to vote, when evil speech determines their suicide, and it is the opposite of authoritarianism, when fake democracy establishment only permits authoritarian perspectives.
If it needs to be banned, we’ve already failed as a society. Society should reject intolerance and value intelligence/knowledge. Giving anyone the ability to control speech. Gives the worst sort of person the absolute need to wield that ability.
This already assumes a generationally informed and educated populace, which is the end goal and wouldn’t really need any “systems” to improve information sources. Everyone participating would naturally reject falsehoods.
The difficulty is working out what system should exist in a world of massive morons.
I may be biased as an anarchist, but what about anarchism? Why would a flat, answerable government based largely on consent and mutual aid be a bad thing? Isn’t the current problem unanswerable people with too much power already. Why would we want to give them more power. That’s definitionally madness to me. If my ideals are any good, I think I should be able to convince them of that without force.
Our problem is that the establishment supports evil speech and suppresses truth. Yes, we’ve failed as a society. The establishment has always had the power to control speech. It’s not because we gave them that power.
Then if the establishment supports evil speech and is simultaneously also the only one capable of enforcing this. Why would you want to give them that power? Any establishment given that sort of power. Would instantly use it to suppress speech that is inconvenient to them.
Complex problems generally don’t have simple solutions. And anyone offering you a simple solution to a complex problem likely thinks you’re a fool.
Democracy is supposed to be allowed to exterminate evil. A theoretical outcome of democracy is less fascism with laws that prevent fascist power, with political campaigns promissing to erradicate demonic supremacist foreign control over the nation. It is genuinely that simple: Proposed laws to exterminate evil influence over establishment.
Just because something is technically a democracy doesn’t mean it has value. Any democracy that is not direct, accountable, or consenting. Isn’t much of a democracy. And democracy exterminates nothing. Any democracy that does, isn’t much of a democracy. Advocating for authoritarianism absolutely makes things less democratic though.
We didn’t get here overnight, and there is nothing we can do that would get us out of this position anytime soon. Especially not reducing democracy. It’s going to take a lot of hard work and cultural change. Teaching people to value understanding and knowledge. Only education can eradicate ignorance, but never completely.
Permitting genocidal and economic fraud speech/lies, means that money is not just speech. Money is terrorism, fascism, fraud. Those with the most money determine establishment through media control, and permitted electability. Exterminating genocide advocacy (replacement theory is genocide of immigrants before their kids can be allowed to vote for universal healthcare), and exterminating trickle down oligarchist fascism lies, is the only option for democracy. People are fundamentally too stupid to vote, when evil speech determines their suicide, and it is the opposite of authoritarianism, when fake democracy establishment only permits authoritarian perspectives.