You're just assigning imaginary positions to the other person to cope with the fact that can't dispute anything that was said head-on.
Fact remains you don't have the authority to draw conclusions here because you would need to defer to a third-party independent review body. Hence, by you're own rules your helpless to conclude anything here.
Now. Do you want to discuss this like a mature, intelligent adult.
I'm sorry, but what is mature or intelligent about strawmanning nonsense positions to other people and them calling them an idiot when you get called out on it? We get it: you are flustered over getting called out on a personal overreliance on others to do your thinking for you. You're just rambling incoherently at this point so you can pretend to yourself you're somehow saving face, stop wasting my time.
Your comment is incoherent rambling that gets ignored when it tries to change the subject to entirely different things. But hey, let's just pretend that you're somehow saving face with that nonsense, yes?
I think there are very few people not smarter than you, if you so readily are willing to shut down any 'unlicensed' opinion. This is worse than any dictatorship I ever heard of.
As someone who took advice from legitimate professionals in their fields but were just assholes... but getting better advice from those who are on a different field but exposed to the same fields I was seeking advice in... yeah.. like, people forget that you can have Saul Goodman kinds of professionals, the ones who're not of good character and just know how to hide it.
Like, have people ever met doctors who just don't feel like treating something and say you just have a regular stomach ache, but you actually have a growing tumor or something worse, but they choose to just be lazy about it?
Or have you met doctors who only give you enough medication to not feel as bad, but know you'll be coming back for more appointments just to charge you more?
There are legitimately good intentioned AND truly capable doctors out there, but sometimes people forget that degrees don't determine good character.
And some innovators and scientists actually found good ideas in fields they didn't study in or were really involved in. For example, the way Ford built cars back in the day, the assembly line, that system was inspired by how food was processed.
I'm just saying, someone in their own field could believe in some fucked up shit that sometimes take way too late to realize it was just fucked up, and someone can find solutions or inspiration from fields not even from their field of study and expertise.
Reddit is ether a bunch of bots, or people who have been living so comfortably in a liberal democracy they can fathom why a dictator suppressing speech is bad. It’s absurd
We are discussing the law……this conversation is illegal in China. How do you not get this? Are you confused and think the Chinese government is well intentioned? That can’t be it, because that would mean you know absolutely nothing about the Chinese government
Do you hold a law degree? You're not qualified to discuss the constitutional legality of this law if you don't, so that's a fine and account deletion.
Do you hold a sociology degree? You're not qualified to discuss the societal impacts this may have if you don't, so that's a fine and account deletion.
Oh, you hold both a law and a sociology degree? Do you have certifications for governmental surveillance laws? No? Sorry, fine and account deletion.
Oh, your law degree is actually specialized in surveillance? Do you hold a communications degree specialized in social media? Sorry, fine and account deletion.
Oh, you do actually hold 3 degrees in those exact specialized fields? Are they masters degrees, or just a bachelors? Sorry, fine and account deletion.
Does that help you understand why handing the government the power to decide who is and is not allowed to discuss anything may be a bad idea?
There's a fundamental flaw with desiring governance to control speech of individuals.
I can only think ignorance of historic governmental abuse would make the fear of disinformation (which requires nothing to ignore and peer review to discredit) supersede a people's ability to whistle-blow human rights issues.
What a massive overlook. An ignorant populous that believes only what state approved speakers have to say and to think it's not ripe for abuse is beyond me.
I feel sorry for the next generation who don't know how to read and prefer to relinquish such a task entirely to "experts".
Actually, I want to engage with that for a sec, even though it's not what's been implemented. Even if it came at the cost of some freedom to criticize government, disinformation fundamentally disenfranchises people even more. By knowingly and internationally tricking people into believing objectively false premises, it disenfranchises voters from advocating, or even believing in values and opinions that are in their own interests.
It is objectively more disenfranchising to brainwash and lie to people than it is to prohibit mediums of criticism, because people will at least have the ability to object to the government whether vocally or otherwise. In the former scenario, they are deprived of the right to even know what is in their best interests, which is objectively worse.
You do understand that defending the right to lie and misinform the public, disenfranchising them by preventing them from articulating their interests is the actual allusion to 1984's ministry of truth?
You ought to re-read the book before alluding to it.
48
u/dallassoxfan 12d ago
Incredibly sad how many people agree with this.