Oh certainly, but a liberal would do so in open debate.

And it caved in. So at least it needs some way of strengthening to come back to the mainstream and stay there. — M777

Perhaps. But censorship would only facilitate a movement to the opposite extreme.

How so? — Michael

I'm generalizing here, but liberal today is starting to become synonymous with authoritarian collectivism, characterized by a disregard for individual rights and fundamentals such as freedom of speech. For strong governments that are given mandates to decide what is truth and what is "disinformation", etc.

A complete perversion of what liberalism is and the principles it is built upon.

Open discourse has been under pressure for decades, and 'political correctness' (in more honest terms: censorship) is a symptom of that. As such, I would point towards this disturbance of open discourse as being the cause for these problematic ideas going unscrutinized.

It's in such a climate that liberal ideas could be hijacked and perverted into something that's essentially the opposite of liberalism. Things went off the deep end, because no pushback was allowed vis á vis 'political correctness.'

Moved to the Lounge, eh?

What a surprise.

I guess this discussion about totalitarianism cut a little too close to home for the folks that run the show on this forum.

In my opinion, all ideas should be able to be expressed. No matter how bad or repulsive. Of course such ideas will be annihilated, but in open, civilized debate, with reasoned arguments.

Bad ideas that have emotional appeal may hold some sway, but they won't hold up to scrutiny and open discourse will prevent these ideas from ever becoming too extreme.

The idea that people are too stupid to handle free discourse is a dark world view that is pretty much incompatible with free, open society. I would avoid such ideas.

Isn't a healthy state of affairs if people are afraid to be racist, for example, or do you envision the ideal state where you can go up to someone, spout your racism, and expect appreciation for your openness? — Hanover

That's not a healthy state of affairs.

The way to get rid of problematic ideas is to discuss them openly. Thereby its flaws will become apparent. That's the whole point of freedom of speech.

I have no fear that racist ideas will find any traction in open debate. It's in a climate of censorship and polarization where problematic ideas find traction, precisely because the balancing act of open debate is cut off.

Open debate fosters reason and truth, whereas (self-)censorship fosters resentment, further division and hides the problematic ideas manifesting in society.

We should not use the term 'political correctness'. It is a euphemism for censorship and thereby it conceals its true nature.

It's a euphemism designed to protect the fragile views of those who enforce it.

That is the purpose of censorship: not to protect a society from dangerous ideas, but rather to protect dangerous ideas from being scrutinized.

After all, if one is convinced their views are so true and those of the other are so silly, then why fear debate?

Related to this, there is no difference between an 'internal thought police' and censorship. When individuals are stopped from expressing their genuinely held beliefs out of fear of punishment that's successful censorship.

Earlier in this thread this was posted:

They are not internally blocking or hindering their own thought. They are reacting in a socially appropriate way to a situation that that might lead to conflict and trying to decide the best way to handle it. They have been asked a question that is polarizing and divisive and they don't know who their audience is or how their answer might be used for or against them. — Hanover

This describes the climate for open debate in western society today.

The fact that people are afraid to discuss ideas is precisely the problem. It doesn't matter if topics are polarizing and divisive - such topics are actually the most important to discuss, so that people with different views do not move ever away from each other, but remain in dialogue.

And nowadays people have come to fear dialogue. They either fear that it may test their world views, or they fear the reprisals that come from testing someone else's.

That's not a normal state of being. It implies our world views have become too detached from nuance and reality, and we are subconsciously aware of it.

Slavoj Žižek seems to have a better grasp of it, in my inexpert opinion. — praxis

How would you summarize Zizek's views on totalitarianism, and how does it relate to Desmet's ideas?

It's a scary term though, ... — praxis

Certainly.

And whatever impressions about it may linger in our minds, they likely pale in comparison to the horror of the historical reality of it.

What I found particularly interesting about Desmet's theory, is how totalitarianism distinguishes itself from classical dictatorships in that a dictatorship is instated from the top down, by a more or less rational ruler.

Totalitarianism on the other hand springs from the population itself. The population willingly cedes control, willingly gives up its freedom and willingly follows its ideas down into the abyss.

And it's this willingness that I observe in public discourse, and even on this forum. Willingness to ignore human rights, to stigmatize and dehumanize dissenting voices, a desire to see people who think differently suffer, or worse.

It's all very sobering.

Again, I've only heard of anti-vax protests. I haven't heard of vax protests or riots. — praxis

Governments are already flirting with forced vaccination. What do they have left to protest for? Gas chambers and concentration camps? Then again, nothing would surprise me at this point.

It concerns the spread of serious diseases like polio, smallpox, and the like, and you don't expect people to be up in arms about it??? — praxis

Covid does not belong in the same category as polio or smallpox. And even if it did, I would expect people to take fundamental human rights into account no matter what the subject matter is - not for talking of human rights to become taboo. That's already the writing on the wall.

Anyway, getting back to Desmet's totalitarianism, if the country is divided over something like COVID then how can the state be considered to be in complete control, or even directing the narrative? — praxis

People may be divided, but governments (unsurprisingly) have largely chosen the side of force, ergo lockdowns, vaccine mandates, etc.

And it directs the narrative accordingly. News stations which are largely government-controlled provide one-sided information. Unwelcome information is simply suppressed. Perhaps not to the point where it cannot be heard at all, at least not yet, but that's not needed to foster this process of mass formation.

Though, the state is not in complete control. Perhaps the term "totalitarian" suggests as much, but what Desmet is describing is a tendency towards, and not a state of totalitarianism.

Oh. Then that message is about you.

That's not very unusual for any discussion around here, actually. — praxis

Sadly true. Where it differs is when the very same insecurity that moves individuals to behave that way manifests in crowds - mass formation.

With freedom comes responsibility. I'm fond of saying that. — praxis

I'm not looking for a discussion on that.

My point is that making a case for individual rights is by no means an extreme position. So why does it elicit an extreme response?

Because it deviates just slightly from the narrative. Enough to imply that the desired carte blanche on the use of power has moral borders.

And the individuals in the mass are subconsciously aware how their moral borders are fading.
Which they are, as evidenced by reactions like these:

Just as long as you never have contact with other humans. — Jackson

I know that's probably a joke, but such reactions weren't uncommon in the discussions I mentioned earlier. Some people genuinely think things like this.

The subconscious knows; the conscious mind doesn't want to know. An internal bomb that's potentially set off by even the slightest deviation of the narrative. No wonder such people become so volatile.

It is expressed through rather extreme reactions to views that deviate even slightly from the narrative. Instead of normal discussion, an immediate escalation to personal attacks, accusations, strawmans, and projection.

You should've seen the reactions I got when on this forum I dared to imply that human beings have a right to bodily autonomy, and therefore should be allowed to choose whether to be vaccinated or not.

In a nutshell, an inability to accept anything other than their exact version of the truth.

Vaccination is another one of those great examples where people seem to show radical intolerance for dissent - mass formation at work.

Should probably note that it's no surprise that this question - which is not even the OPs question but just another bit of culture-war trash picked up from elsewhere - asks 'what is a woman?' rather than 'what is a man?' - because this kind of stuff is always just paper-thin misogyny pretending to be just-asking-questions - AKA JAQing off. It's women and their gender who must be policed and shunted into whatever little boxes these people have in mind. Largely because they only want to fuck and fantasize about the Right Kind of Women, so men can be whatever (so long as they keep it to themselves!). These people are afraid - terrified - that their fantasies and hard-ons will be misdirected. And that would be ggaaaaayyyy which is icky. — Streetlight

You got all of that from a single question asked by a hypothetical stranger?

A genius psychologist or...

I don't think it was the antivax side who displayed a stunning intolerance for conflicting views. I think you should rewatch it, and this time the whole thing. It could very well be about you.

I might argue that such desires for totalitarianism might come out of one's weakness. — M777

Well, extreme views are false almost by their definition, so this desire for the use of force to uphold radical ideas is due to the weakness of it - reality itself won't uphold the idea. In fact, reality makes it crumble. The only way such ideas stay afloat is through human ignorance, foolhardiness and brutality - qualities of which there is no shortage within mankind.

What do you think might happen to the west? — M777

Who knows?

Another thing Desmet describes is that this phenomenon of mass formation and totalitarianism (other than classical dictatorships, for example) come from inside the population itself, in other words, we're on a path towards radicalism because people have become more radical, and not only are they fully aware of the dangers, they wish for them, for example censorship, because it protects their radical views. We're in this situation because people want to be in this situation.

Desmet links this to the coldly mechanistic / scientific world view that believes in absolute answers to everything, and that everything, including human interaction, can be understood in simple x + y = z terms - something that in itself sums up the totalitarian way of looking at things. After all, if one believes to have the absolute answer to everything, it is a small step to believe one should allow themselves priviledges over others in order to bend them to this "truth".

Obviously, nothing good can come of this. However, as long as there are people willing and able to speak out this constant pull towards more extremism can be disrupted and hopefully in time some form of balance will be restored.

I'll try to explain in a nutshell one of the ideas in the video in linked that relates to this topic:

Political issues are guided by narratives, and narratives are subjective - containing some forms of truth, and some opinions / untruths.

In a healthy society, proponents of different narratives are in constant communication with each other, so as to find out which parts of each narrative are truths and which parts are not. The result is usually that the sides find each other somewhere in the middle, shedding those parts which are most subjective and/or wrong.

In societies where for some reason or another healthy discourse is not possible (for example, because the political establishment greatly favors one side of the debate), this balancing act cannot take place.

There's nothing that can pull the favored narrative back into reality.

And that's sadly not where it ends. Lies and untruths must grow to keep themselves alive (for every time reality is witnessed to be discordant with the lie, another lie must be constructed to keep the narrative afloat), thus we see the extreme ends of the spectrum growing more and more extreme.

This is why self-censorship is so dangerous - people who genuinely disagree with the narrative are the only ones that can attempt to pull it back towards reality.

It is no surprise then, that the worst political ideologies committed their atrocities only after the opposition was silenced - there was no one left who could pull the ideologically possessed masses back into reality.


I probably did a poor job at conveying the full message of Desmet. I'd recommend watching the video I linked eariler to get a better explanation.

reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee — Streetlight

That is you, in pretty much every thread I find you.

The fragility is overwhelming. — Streetlight

The irony.

It's a symptom of totalitarianism.

I would highly suggest watching some interviews with Mattias Desmet, a Belgian psychology professor, who explores this same phenomenon (closely related to the concept of mass formation) in the context of the covid-19 epidemic.

Here's a link (changed it because I think this one is more interesting):

Why are hunters entertained by hunting? Why do some animals play with their food?

We've already established that there needs to be no strictly rational reason behind the act of killing in order for animals to be excused, as per the example of wolves killing lifestock for no reason. So why the double standard?

So humans need to practice to hunt to survive? — L'éléphant

It's not inconceivable that during our lifetime there will come a point where we must fall back on such things - during a war for example.

So I ask again, why is it when an animal is cruel we excuse it as practice or instinct, but when a human does it we label it as malignant aggression?

Would you say these wolves are being cruel? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Possibly?

I tried to draw attention to why such an act is considered malignant when a human does it, but not when an animal does it.

No they have a reason-- training for hunting. If cattle is made available, that's where they're going to practice. — L'éléphant

Why is it that when an animal exhibits such behavior we excuse it, but when a human does it we label it as malignant, though?

To name an example; a human being cruel to animals is probably something we'd label as malignant. But we could just as easily argue this person is "training" for rough times that may be ahead, which isn't even that far-fetched.

Wolves are notorious where I live for killing cattle without eating it. Killing for the sake of killing, it seems.

In Russia... — Isaac

In Nazi Germany... — Isaac

In 1989 China... — Isaac

What makes you so certain that law enforcement and military units would side with the citizens to a sufficient degree? — Tzeentch

If your argument is that law enforcement and militaries siding with the civilians is enough of a safeguard against tyranny, then you must agree that they did not do so to a sufficient enough degree in these examples.

Or perhaps relying on law enforcement and the military alone is not enough.

In 1960s America the military and police were not recruited, but the neither did the protestors use armed insurgency to get what they wanted so the example is moot. — Isaac

The example is not moot. It's an example of how tyrannical modern governments can be, including western ones, and that law enforcement and militaries are more likely to stand by and watch it happen than to side with whoever is being oppressed.

1. It's vastly more likely, given historical precedent, that the military would be involved in any revolt and so private weaponry would be redundant. — Isaac

What makes you believe private weaponry would be redundant?

Civilians fight in such wars, and they own firearms exactly like the ones used in such wars. Moreover, militaries are potentially at a major disadvantage when fighting against another stronger military. That's why in these types of conflicts irregular approaches to warfare are chosen (i.e. insurgency) and often come out on top.

By your own example you've shown that militaries and law enforcement are often not enough to make a significant change.

2. It's extremely unlikely that the people currently armed would ever for a cohesive unit opposed to government tyranny, especially in America. — Isaac

Why could the Polish, Afghans, Iraqis, Vietnamese, etc. form cohesive fighting units, but not Americans?

And what do you mean with cohesive?

Government's there are becoming increasingly right-leaning and most gun-enthusiasts are also right-leaning. You'd have to envisage either a left-wing tyranny or a sudden arming of left-wing militia. Neither show any signs of likelihood. — Isaac

Tyranny has no political affiliation, and considering the last two US presidents, and the West's recent trend towards authoritarianism per Chinese model, I politely disagree.

It's a slippery slope. We may go down it, or we may not. I don't trust people enough to blindly assume it will not happen.

3. Modern warfare is fought on three fronts - informational, technological and territorial. Weapons are only of any use in the third. What we'd need for a revolution are hackers and bloggers, not rednecks with guns — Isaac

Yes and no.

Modern warfare between modern nations is fought on multiple fronts, not all of which are physical.

But during irregular warfare all such rules and concepts go out of the window. The US military had to reinvent itself multiple times during its wars in the Middle-East, and still ended up losing them all to farmers who fought with nothing but the most rudimentary weapons.

You're avoiding any type of discussion. Run along now.

Let's see if I understand you correctly:

Part of your argument is that if a citizenry would be in a position where it wanted to revolt, enough members of the law enforcement and military apparatus would join them to make armament of the citizens unnecessary.

- This implies that you agree some form of insurance needs to be in place to protect a nation's people from its own government.

- What makes you so certain that law enforcement and military units would side with the citizens to a sufficient degree? During the rise of communism in Russia, they did not. During the rise of nazism in Germany, they did not. During the era of racial segregation in America, they did not. In 1989 in China, they did not, to name just a few examples.


To move forward we also need to agree on whether or not a large armed citizen's revolt is an effective way of toppling a government. I think history clearly shows the effectiveness of irregular warfare and the failure of large nations to combat it, despite extreme advantages in manpower and technology.

Given that it cannot bomb and destroy indiscriminately, a nation fighting a large revolt on its own soil against its own people is unimaginable. Even with indiscriminate destruction bordering a genocide, (i.e. WWII Germany in Eastern Europe, the US in Vietnam) they couldn't manage it.

Most nations who tried could barely control a rogue province.

You will never be an "insurgent" kindly go back to playing a video game with your mountain dew instead of enabling the regular murder of children. Comic-con is a far better place to play out your fantasies than the blood-stained walls of classrooms. — Streetlight

Yep. As long as nothing changes and kids continue to die, these LARPers will simply say anything from one end to the other. — Streetlight

At some point, when your whole identity is nothing but the fantasy of playing rebel freedom-fighter from your TV couch, you will literally let classrooms of children be shot to death so that one can still maintain that fantasy in their head. These people want to role-play victims so hard, they will let any number of real life victims drop dead so they LARP about being some Hollywood 'insurgent'. May they all commit suicide. — Streetlight

Just say you want more dead children already. — Streetlight

It is settled on the side of being totally OK with murdering children, regularly. The rest is performance. — Streetlight

:yawn: You got nothing.

We can get into that, but I have to deal with this low hanging fruit first.

History is full of lots of things that aren't coming back. — Baden

And it is also full of things that are. If there's one thing that runs like a red line through history it's the corruption of power structures and the subsequent abuse of civilian populations.

... and cling to the fantasy that we'd heroically fend off the military. — Xtrix

You will never be an "insurgent"... — Streetlight

:yawn: Why are you so interested in talking about me? I don't even own a gun. But it's cute that you're trying.

For denizens of a philosophy forum you sure react like school children upon hearing an opinion you don't like. Many the animosity is insecurity?

Perhaps provide some good reasons why you put all your faith in the United States government.

Those did not include any real response to my arguments.

What am I to make of what you said? That you apparently find it hard to envision governments doing unacceptable things to its citizenry? I don't find that hard to imagine at all. In fact, American history has more than a few blemishes that I guess you're quick to forget.

Just put a little bandaid over it and trust that your government won't do it again, eh?

Christ almighty.

Oh, what part do you disagree with?

Are all of you just completely unaware of what an insurgency is and how it works?

We can talk about how likely it is for a government to misbehave to where a large part of the citizenry is willing to take up arms against it, but if that were to happen the army isn't going to stop it.

If the citizenry is unarmed? All you have is hopes and prayers that it never comes to that. An unshakable faith in the incorruptibleness of power structures - one that I do not share.

The power structures of the US and the EU, and probably of just about every other country in the world, are already corrupt. The only question is whether they'll turn violent.

Government serves us by enforcing a system of social relations that's conducive to mutually beneficial interaction and general personal security. The cost is we play ball and obey the law. Overall, it's a reasonable trade. — Baden

As of right now? I would probably agree.

But given the events of the last years, it is not obvious that things should stay that way.

Fretting about Mad Max scenarios, or fantasising about vanquishing tanks and planes with guns is a sad and delusional way to live, and completely unnecessary. — Baden

You speak as though the United States military, with all their planes, tanks, cruise missiles and artillery strikes never lost a war against armed peasants, when in fact that's all they did in the past decades.

The difference would be that in those wars the US could afford not to care about the land and people they destroyed.

Lol these fucking people think they are in a video game. — Streetlight

, he yelled from his glass prison.

What role are you playing?

That of the broken prisoner with Stockholm syndrome, or the king's dog?

Neither can stand to see others defy the power they so meekly subjugated themselves to.

What I object to about your argument is the pretty loathsome idea that the absolutely miniscule chance that an armed 'people's militia' will prevent such an outcome ... — Isaac

I'd say history and in recent times the track record of the United States military (the world's most advanced military) speak to the contrary.

Peasants with rifles are apparently not so easy to get rid of, no matter how much barbarism one is willing to resort to.

Bla bla, willful failure to represent my position properly is just a tacit admission of defeat on your part.

Why would it be 'large scale', ... — Isaac

You don't think people would be prompted to resist against government tyranny? As people have throughout history?

It's just a fantasy. — Isaac

It's you who is living in a fantasy, I'm afraid. A fantasy in which government is man's best friend, of which we have nothing to fear. It is not. It has been and always will be the greatest enemy to peace and humanity.

Implicit in your views seems to be "the end of history" fantasy. That we've finally arrived at a point in time where large-scale corruption, war and atrocity are a thing of the past. That "man has figured it out".

If you had asked me 20 years ago, I might've been swayed by that idea. Today, not so much.

Force is the language of tyrants, force is the language of government, and all peoples who would wish to remain free should speak it.