Imagine a normal classroom where a single kid is constantly disrupting all discussions and lectures by yelling lies or inciting violence, disrupting with "Kill the teacher!" injections.
Of course these kids would be dealt with. They'd be removed, parent called, expelled so that all other kids can have fruitful discussions.
But somehow here we are discussing that the exact analogue in social media is somehow worthy of protection and being allowed to yell, spread disinformation and incite literal domestic terrorism, sedition and insurrection.
My European perspective on this is that speech should be as free as possible without crossing some strict borders. And for me, these borders clearly are calls for violence or destruction of the state. A democracy cannot exist without compromise.
Republicans and their far-right extremist equals in Europe are not willing or ready to achieve compromise. For decades it has been an "Us vs. them" instead of finding an optimal compromise. Their mode of operation is disrupt, gaslight, object. No matter how objectively true things are (climate change, Corona...)
It's not conservatism itself that is bad but at least since Reagan, the shape of conservatism in the US has become inhuman and disgusting. And the GOP is celebrating itself for it, cumulating in the terrorist MAGA cult.
I think this is a key point that is currently at quite a low ebb worldwide. The appetite for compromise seems to be at an unhealthy nadir.
I understand that, when you think you are right and the other side is wrong or even evil, it can be difficult to want to compromise.
People are quick to cite polarization as the source, and yes, sure; but what causes and has caused this polarization? It's not like the world was never polarized before.
If the general decline in violence is true, such as claimed by e.g. Pinker (Better Angels etc), then maybe we are not actually more polarized than ever before? But the evidence seems conflicting at best.
The problem with the analogy is that children have adults as teachers. But in politics, we are the adults, and there are no teachers who can be trusted to know better.
I also think your last paragraph is over-the-top, and probably reflects a relatively biased sample from the underlying facts.
Probably true but I am capable of accepting this criticism without devolving into a foaming rage kid. I wrote the paragraph out of conviction that we face a social movement unlike anything we have known in modern times and that it isn't based on arguments but emotions and exploitation of social dynamics.
My ego isn't infinitely tied to my opinions and views - though to some degree it certainly must be. I don't believe in deleting what I wrote but maybe I could have written something less polemic. I was probably damaging discussions myself.
The question is always: can you take a step back, reflect and maybe adjust your opinions? I even understand resolute positions on ephemeric topics such as ethics and value systems.
One can have long discussions about how to deal with a hijacked airplane heading for a population center. But baseless opinions about a virus or measured climate change, such as outright denial of their existence or impacts, have no place in "adult" discussions.
We should be concerned about how to face these issues and not discuss with trolls and gaslighters about established, independently proven facts.
Of course these kids would be dealt with. They'd be removed, parent called, expelled so that all other kids can have fruitful discussions.
But somehow here we are discussing that the exact analogue in social media is somehow worthy of protection and being allowed to yell, spread disinformation and incite literal domestic terrorism, sedition and insurrection.
My European perspective on this is that speech should be as free as possible without crossing some strict borders. And for me, these borders clearly are calls for violence or destruction of the state. A democracy cannot exist without compromise.
Republicans and their far-right extremist equals in Europe are not willing or ready to achieve compromise. For decades it has been an "Us vs. them" instead of finding an optimal compromise. Their mode of operation is disrupt, gaslight, object. No matter how objectively true things are (climate change, Corona...)
It's not conservatism itself that is bad but at least since Reagan, the shape of conservatism in the US has become inhuman and disgusting. And the GOP is celebrating itself for it, cumulating in the terrorist MAGA cult.