Actual media decentralization is the core issue. Everything else is downstream. We have enough empathy and intelligence together to solve all of our biggest problems, if our attention wasn't constantly redirected toward frivolous concerns and bad arguments.

We should be able to acknowledge that very wealthy people pursue their own interests, sometimes to the detriment of others (like we all do). Without thinking almost everyone in key positions to make decisions or report inconvenient facts is under their control.

I'm glad to see people begin to embrace the term "liberal" (as in the opposite of illiberalism) and advocate for . Still waiting for them to get their heads around how decentralization (esp in media and technology) is an essential part of that fight.

Why is "crazy" so entertaining? What's the evolutionary advantage of that? Add the people who get locked into that kind of entertainment, to those blinded by tribalism, and the whole shit house might go up in flames.

This is why we must take their money. Under capitalism with free expression protections necessary for democracy, their wealth translates into too much influence over public understanding and civic life. $10m/year, $100m in assets maximum.
mintpressnews.com/documents-sh

Justice? People have an understanding of reality and then what it should look like. Letting others convince you that either of these should be different is a strange process that we should never fully accept or reject. Reason, like objective reality. Close enough.

It's great when good arguments receive some attention. But most people are still behind basically paid-for public conversation spaces, whether that's big social, cable news or legacy papers. The decentralization movement is the fight for equal consideration.

When you engage people across the political divides, it's wild to see how bias works. People are so sure they know so much more than they do, and that leads them to building walls that makes it worse. Humility is just so important.

Bad title but it nails what I'm up to with my podcast. The writer is heading up @uaustinorg@twitter.com, which I worry will be more grift than anything useful. But this should be a major focus of high schools imo, preparing all adults for civic life.
heterodoxacademy.org/blog/view?

Parrhesiastes is a noun, meaning one who uses parrhesia, for example "one who speaks the truth to power".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrhesi

The internet disintermediates information & opinion. That's a huge cultural change everyone needs to adapt to. Direct censorship & cancel culture will fail in the long-term & lead to backlashes. We must embrace our responsibility for what goes viral in the culture.

I understand that a word can have multiple meanings, but shouldn't the most widely assumed/dominant one be that in which its opposite (illiberalism) is still clearly understood? Instead, it's the one they jump to last. Classical? Neo? Fuck off.

Elections result from so many factors that it's dumb to take meaning from them. Parties do more harm than good cause while they don't control what candidates support (& shouldn't), failure is allocated to everyone.

Honest independent candidates, attentive voters.

Law enforcement & acquiescence is downstream from a sense of legitimate government which is downstream from a shared understanding of reality & morality.

Part of my hope for media getting better comes from the human tendency to get bored by the same creators providing the same fucking slant on everything they produce. We all eventually seek out new voices with unique perspectives, right?

What we say or who we vote for verges on meaningless compared to the importance of getting the systems of communication and political representation changed. Media must be truly decentralized and our voting system must break free of the duopoly.

Show older
Liberal City

a place for liberal values on the #fediverse