"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them"
Combine this with "lies spread faster than truth," and you can see why advancements in communication technology proceed periods of social upheaval, at least until inoculating social technologies are developed to moderate the synergy of these two effects.
> Combine this with "lies spread faster than truth,"....
Even more complicated:
- this applies to all piecs of information, including mainstream "truths" that are not actually true
- there is an important distinction between lies, speaking untruthfully, speaking misinformatively, etc
- most people are not just bad at epistemology (and related fields), they think they are good (because it seems that way, and "seems true equals true" in our culture) - epistemology is highly counter-intuitive
Yep, the critique of social facts on HN gas gotten me some of the most extreme responses. It's also frankly, delightful to frame personal opinion in the language of social fact and have folks wires get fried not knowing how to respond. Espistomology can have it's entertaining and playful side too. :)
On top of that, maybe we shouldn't put tolerance itself as a goal? It's a tool. And a tool that can be greatly abused. But nowadays it seems to be a goal by itself. Which both opens up a lot of abuse and seems a wee meaningless as a goal by itself.
China is an existential threat for western block. She is buying almost all mines of raw materials needed for batteries and green economy, generally speaking, she's going to buy russian gas at great discount, she's undermining western established institutions.
Maybe it's a good thing for the world to be more balanced towards a so big autocracy, it seems majority of people don't care about democracy. But I'm egoist, I live in the west and I care about the future of my country.
I've been hearing this for years, possibly decades. If China is such an existential threat, why didn't we (the wealthiest country in the world) buy up those mines ourselves?
Why is TikTok of all things where we're making our stand? I don't buy it.
The US Government has very little interest in becoming the employer of mines overseas... and rightfully so. The accusations of colonialism when applied to the United States are quite appropriate.
Having arbitrary companies buy the mines is something that they occasionally do - however, that comes with the risk of exposing themselves to the corruption and issues of the country where the mines are located. The FCPA https://www.trade.gov/us-foreign-corrupt-practices-act makes it difficult for companies that aren't going to use bribery to compete against other companies and countries where corruption isn't seen as an issue.
These can make it rather difficult for the United States government or a company based in the United States to try to "buy up" the raw materials of other countries.
TikTok, however, is a way for one government that the US has a strained relationship with to potentially direct the public discourse in the US or use it to track / identify individuals. The spying that was mentioned is https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/22/tiktok-by...
> TikTok has admitted that it used its own app to spy on reporters as part of an attempt to track down the journalists’ sources, according to an internal email.
> The data was accessed by employees of ByteDance, TikTok’s Chinese parent company and was used to track the reporters’ physical movements. The company’s chief internal auditor Chris Lepitak, who led the team involved in the operation, has been fired, while his China-based manager Song Ye has resigned.
> ...
> ByteDance and TikTok had initially issued categorical denials of the allegations when they were first reported. The company claimed it “could not monitor US users in the way the article suggested”, and added that TikTok had never been used to “target” any “members of the US government, activists, public figures or journalists”. Those claims are now acknowledged to be false.
As a consequence of the US war with the Islamic State across Iraq and Syria; IS had previously occupied Eastern Syria where the oil fields now controlled by the US are located.
> Crickets in the media - because it wouldn’t look good.
Crickets in the news media largely because the news media covers news and static situations aren’t news (same reason whey the occupation of Crimea got intense coverage for a short time in 2014 and then critics until 2022, which wasn’t because Russian aggression and occupation looks bad for the US.)
The news media covers events related the US presence in Syria, but the ongoing fact just isn’t news.
> In 2020, a U.S. firm called Delta Crescent Energy LLC secured a deal with the Kurdish authorities under an authorization from the U.S. government. The firm’s partners include former U.S. ambassador to Denmark James Cain, also a Republican campaign donor; James Reese, a former U.S. special forces officer; and an experience oil executive, John Dorrier Jr.
> The Daily Beast reported that Delta was to earn $1 per barrel of oil exported from Syria, according to government filings. Dorrier, the firm’s CEO, had worked with a U.K. oil company with offices in Syria. He told the Military Times that Delta “had some $2 billion in contracts to sell oil into the international market that will benefit American allies in northeast Syria that have helped in the fight against the Islamic State group.”
> The Assad foreign ministry called it all a U.S. plot to “steal Syria’s crude oil.” The ministry described the Kurdish forces as “terrorist militias,” and predicted they would be defeated by the government.
> Delta Crescent Energy was the only firm licensed by the U.S. government to work in Syria. The license was permitted despite U.S. Treasury sanctions aimed at punishing the Assad regime.
> Things changed when the new Biden administration did not renew Delta’s sanctions waiver this year.
> In February, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said that the 900 American troops then in Syria were there to resist IS and “are not authorized to provide assistance to any other private company, including its employees or agents, seeking to develop oil resources in Syria.”
---
Do you have any additional sources that support the US is using Syrian oil fields for supplying US Bases?
What do you mean by existential threat? Walk me through the scenario that starts with the US not banning TikTok and ends with the non-existence of the US.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_truth_effect
Tolerance is an important social/psychological phenomenon, but perception is even more important. Teaching people to think in memes is dangerous imho.