| ▲ | getcthbf67 a day ago |
| As a contrararianI'm silenced a lot. How do you suggest alignment can happen if more persuasive dissenting voices are allowed to be heard? |
|
| ▲ | fnordpiglet a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| Why is alignment necessary? In our system compromise is the typical alignment sought where no single view dominates the decisions or direction. With enforced alignment no compromise is more than not necessary it’s not possible. That’s the dysfunction of the present because there’s a perception that holding office entails enforcing alignment, and opposing voices not only need not be heard but are forcefully silenced. However the system we have in the US doesn’t allow for that, and explicably, it’s even more dysfunctional than normal. Sooner or later they have to stop and compromise, over throw the system, or be removed. That’s precisely how it’s designed to work. So, you shouldn’t be silenced, your opinions should be heard, and to the extent they’re reasonable, they should be considered proportional to your ability to influence. The more to which this is prevented or ignored the more unstable the system is. |
| |
| ▲ | getcthbf67 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | fnordpiglet 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | There’s a difference between forced alignment and rejection of falsehoods. On each of these the response to the questions were investigations in the public space, especially vaccines, but through various processes. This is the opposite of forced alignment - this is deliberately considering opposing views. That doesn’t mean a decision isn’t eventually reached, and the fact we are relitigating all of these year over year even on verifiable facts shows there is no forcing of alignment by the system. I think people don’t realize what forced alignment looks like - that’s Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Xi China, North Korea, etc, where dissent is not tolerated, not allowed, and alignment is forced. | | |
| ▲ | getcthbf67 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | fnordpiglet 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, HN isn’t a part of the system I refer to, the system is the constitutional republic under the bill of rights. And you’ll notice as forced alignment is attempted in our system it gets litigated and often fails. The policy system is generally deliberative requiring input and consideration at minimum. Everything is reviewed by many layers of judicial review for fairness, and every six years the entire executive and legislative branch could undergo a total revolution. What i think is false is considered but isn’t by mandate so, no matter who I am - president, senator, HN poster. What is considered true today can be repudiated tomorrow. | | | |
| ▲ | slater 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And you thinking something is true doesn't make it so. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | mpalmer a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What exactly do you think you deserve that you're not getting? |
| |
| ▲ | getcthbf67 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | I deserve words and actions to align. If people say they believe in free speech, then don't throttle posting rates. What i want is Honest, logical decision making, from a foundation of facts. What I get is tyranny. If you think free speech is important, then don't flag posts as trolling. What you say is free speech is important as long as it doesn't disrupt MY community. Free speech is important unless I label you a troll. Those statements are contradictory. | | |
| ▲ | mpalmer 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | They are not contradictory. Publicly labeling someone a troll is indisputably speech. You mistake the situation as someone denying you your rights, but really you are just failing to recognize the same rights for that person or group. The communities that are presumably excluding you are exercising their freedom of association. You may not (indeed, seem not to) realize, but freedom of association is understood to be part of the set of freedoms generally known as freedom of speech/expression. It's the freedom of people, collectively or individually, to associate with certain others, or not to associate with them. You are reckoning with the consequences of how you've chosen to exercise your rights, but you have not been denied them. No one is obligated to include you (in the context of public discourse). | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | michael_michael a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Silenced by whom? |
| |
| ▲ | theendisney a day ago | parent [-] | | Even the smallest authority may want to force others back in line. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz a day ago | parent [-] | | “Your ideas suck and you should stop espousing them” is free speech too. | | |
| ▲ | getcthbf67 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not when it's followed by a blocking of the account being disagreed with. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Bullshit. I have the right to free association, too. I am not required to let you interact with me; I can block you on Twitter just as I can lock you out of my house. | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | epistasis a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Contrarian on taxes, spending, organizational issues, democracy versus monarchy? Or it, you know, those contrarian views? You know the ones. (Personally, I'm a contrarian about the presence of fire in crowded theaters, and boy have I been silenced) |
