zlacker

[return to "The Origins of Wokeness"]
1. rhelz+A9[view] [source] 2025-01-13 12:55:07
>>crbela+(OP)
From the article: "Twitter, which was arguably the hub of wokeness, was bought by Elon Musk in order to neutralize it, and he seems to have succeeded — and not, incidentally, by censoring left-wing users the way Twitter used to censor right-wing ones, but without censoring either. [14]"

Then follow to the footnote: "[14] Elon did something else that tilted Twitter rightward though: he gave more visibility to paying users."

This is puzzling to me because: if you give more visibility to one group of people's speech, that means you are giving less visibility to another group of people's speech. Which is just another way of saying you are censoring their speech.

Again, the author asks: "...is there a way to prevent any similar outbreak of aggressively performative moralism in the future?" But preventing somebody from expressing their moral values again is censorship.

No matter what kind of media policies there are, the fact that there is limited bandwidth means that some views are going to be emphasized, and other views are going to be suppressed.

◧◩
2. djur+gc1[view] [source] 2025-01-13 18:40:38
>>rhelz+A9
The antiwoke crusaders are just as intent on moralizing and language policing as the worst of their opponents, and in places like Florida they're actively implementing limitations on speech and academic inquiry. To the extent that Graham and his fellow travelers in tech believe in freedom of expression, they've picked dangerous allies.
◧◩◪
3. mywitt+p42[view] [source] 2025-01-13 22:22:00
>>djur+gc1
The past few years has shown us who the tech titans really are. We only had an inkling before, but now they don't have any reason to maintain a facade.

They believe in oligarchy so long as they are the oligarchs. They believe in authoritarianism so long as they are the authorities. They believe in censorship so long as they are the censors.

And now that they've amassed power that will be unopposed for the foreseeable future, there's no reason to pretend their goals are elsewhere. A single party system will cause them issues like Chin has, America has 30-50 years to get to that point and presumably they all plan on emerging as the Supreme Leader when that day comes - or at least landing in the inner circle.

◧◩◪◨
4. antifa+I94[view] [source] 2025-01-14 15:21:24
>>mywitt+p42
For your average voter, the current two party system is almost materially indistinguishable from one party pretending to be 2 parties, so the issues have already started, perhaps even for decades. Fixes for this include, but are not limited to: campaign finance reform and ranked choice voting.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. J_McQu+rp9[view] [source] 2025-01-15 23:06:02
>>antifa+I94
"The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them."

- Julius Nyerere

[go to top]