Claim it, twist it, poison it, ruin it.

Nothing new historically. You don’t have to accept their false premises by surrendering ideas to them.

things people used to care about or that used to be innocuous

Free speech is power, not innocuous: authorities fear it. It belongs to the people unless they surrender it.

Used to care about? Only if you let them stop you.

That’s just technology & fearmongering. Socrates was critical of writing out of concerns it would deteriorate minds & make superficial thinkers. Critics were concerned the printing press would lead to widespread moral degradation with the abundance of low-quality literature. People criticized television & media for brain rot.

Guess what you’re the next iteration of?

Technologies change, yet good principles hold regardless.

You know what you can do with free speech? More free speech. No one has a monopoly on LLM, bots, or algorithms. If people were inclined, they could launch these technologies to counter messages they oppose. People can choose to tune out & disregard expressions. Much more can be done with free speech.

Does anyone?

Yes, old-school liberals, the ACLU, etc.

It’s bizarre & disappointing that newer generations seem to associate freedom of speech with right-wing authoritarians when freedom of speech has been a firmly liberal value advanced through the enlightenment & civil rights movement. Everyone ought to defend it.

The point of my post is that some of the loudest proponents of free speech have ulterior motives.

So what? Free speech is still right: everyone should fervently defend it. Whether they’re sincere about it or not, free speech is indispensable to a liberal democracy.

The problem isn’t free speech. The problem is people who want to take it all away. If you fall into the trap of abandoning basic values from the enlightenment when they make it inconvenient, then you play into their game & help them set back society.

Why not instead flood X with tons of pro-Canadian content/shitposting (for great justice)? Maybe they could band together with other countries & do an all-out offensive against X, overwhelming their servers?

I’d bring out popcorn for that.

Right: the moderation is really to serve themselves including by protecting brands of commercial interests & advertiser revenue, but these platforms have deluded users into buying the pretext that it’s an essential part of a “safe, non-toxic” culture.

Though that may be the case with references to Luigi, they’ll happily abide by much senseless moderation like

• blanket blocks of comments containing links of any kind in subreddits such as r/mildlyinfuriating
• blocks of meta discussions
• strange ideas of brigading that treat a link to a post in another subreddit as “community inference”
• practical bans of subreddits airing grievances about bad moderation
• blocking any insult even when it doesn’t amount to harassment
• blocking any expression of violence even when it’s not incitement until it swings back & strikes against expressions of class consciousness that refer to Luigi.

With newer platforms like mastodon & bluesky, it seems like more of the same: their advocates often gush proudly of their robust moderation & claim that their extra moderation is indispensable to a safe, non-toxic experience.

I think all we need from moderation is removal of illegal content & perhaps offloading of off-topic content somewhere else. Rather than block offensive content, they could label it & let users decide whether to filter it out. Bluesky already does this, but they hardcode their in-house moderation, so users can’t opt out as we saw when they blocked the Trump toe-sucking Elon deepfake video.

Reddit sucks because of the moderation, yet the current zeitgeist continues to be that this extra moderation is some wondrous, beautiful thing that improves everything it touches, and new platforms need more of it. Fuck that & fuck Reddit.

Not saying you should. The fact remains, though, you’re already investing it in real estate in an all-eggs-in-one-basket situation, inflation & property taxes are real, and insurance costs. Real estate still has some risk compared to low-risk assets that appreciate: do you remember any recent real estate crashes?

Investment accounts are generally insured (against things going missing) up to high limits, and you can split them up to fit in those limits.

If it all goes to shit, practically none of it will be worth much anyway. If armageddon doesn’t come to pass, you’ll be stuck with some property, livestock, crops, so not all bad.

Tax-free growth at compounding interest, beating inflation, diversification to mitigate risk & lessen volatility (eg, not putting eggs all in 1 basket). Markets always have risk: if you’re really afraid of risk, you can shift to mostly low-risk types of investments (bonds, money market, cash equivalents, etc). Real estate is typically considered riskier.

Retirement isn’t necessary: qualified distributions (no tax penalty) only require reaching a certain age or any of the many exceptions (including terminal illness). Early distribution with tax penalty is always possible.

It’s all basic information a certified financial planner or advisor or some articles on the internet can tell you.

Wouldn’t it be easier to disrupt the system by—I don’t know—something old & boring like asking everyone to clean out/close their bank accounts at the same time to cause a run on banks?

Where do people come up with these weaker ideas? Trump’s inanity might disrupt the economy more than these efforts.

‘illegal protests’

Then they’re safe, since protests are legal.

Yet people still decided who to vote for & who not to vote against. People still hold responsibility for their vote or failure to vote: they knew who Trump was. They’d seen his shit before.

Also, why do you think the guy in the trucker hat is a leftist?

A good bit of literature has studied the problem and arrived to recommendations that overlap in parts & depart in others with this playbook.

A former parliamentarian of the Hungarian government studied its slide into illiberalism, and suggested remedies for the current, similar trend in the US. Resist in the courts & media, and build a powerful social base at the state & city level throughout the country. The latter means

the Democratic Party must reconnect with the working class to preserve liberal institutions

Doing that means

1. “creating new and strengthening existing local organizational structures, especially labor unions”. Do not focus “on issues important to the active base only” such as “media freedom or democracy”: this leads to “failures of mass mobilizations”. “[E]ngage with [ordinary people] outside elections, focusing on issues that matter to them”.
2. “[T]o push through popular reforms that elites oppose”, free “the party from elite capture” by shifting financing “from the corporate elite to small and micro-donations”.
3. “[C]ommit to left-populist economic policies”.
4. “[L]earn symbolic class politics”, “embrace the mundane and be down to earth”.

you don’t protect democracy by talking about democracy — you protect democracy by protecting people

I’m seeing the playbook overlap a bit with points 1 & 4, diverge from point 2, and not treat point 3.

Another article reviews research observing a decades-long trend of class dealignment: workers abandoning the left-wing party & joining the right. As unions have weakened and Democrats abandoned them, the party has increasingly relied on & shifted appeal to urban middle class professionals & minorities. The review names 4 paths researched or discussed to reverse dealignment.

• inclusive populism: “appeal to working-class voters’ sense of resentment at economic elites and stress how elites use racial resentment to divide segments of the working class that share a common interest in economic justice”
• anti-woke social democ­racy: make “a clean break with factions of the party that embrace unpopular social and cultural messaging that alienates working-class voters”
• deliverism: “pass and implement large-scale economic reforms that benefit working Americans”
• institutionalism: reinvigorate a “labor movement capable of advancing working-class interest in politics and [re-embed] Democratic and progressive politics into the lived experiences of working-class communities”

It looks like the playbook is going with anti-woke social democ­racy & institutionalism, rejecting inclusive populism, not mentioning deliverism.

They seem to think the way to win the working class is to go more MAGA-like (anti-woke social democ­racy) instead of trying a competing strategy like inclusive populism. It also looks like they’re choosing not to break free of elite capture, which seems like a huge mistake.