>However, what you're pointing out is that the difference is not because the principles are different.
Yes, they are. The reason "the people who would do this don't yet have 100% coverage over society" is precisely because, at least for now, principles in the West find this sort of authoritarianism repugnant. This is exactly the kind of false equivalency the parent is talking about.
Yes, they are. The reason "the people who would do this don't yet have 100% coverage over society" is precisely because, at least for now, principles in the West find this sort of authoritarianism repugnant.
I'd agree that there are a lot of people who find that kind of authoritarianism repugnant. Then, you have lots of people who work at various tech companies who basically engage in censorship. There are also a lot of people who will wield institutional power to engage in censorship. There are entire academic fields where professors and researchers are fearful of discussing their findings in the mainstream, because they can be castigated for doing so. There are large numbers of people who will use physical violence as a means of political coercion, and there are many, many people who will give their tacit approval of this.
A lot of people in the West find that kind of authoritarianism repugnant. A lot of people in the West find satisfaction in exercising repugnant authoritarianism.
>A lot of people in the West find that kind of authoritarianism repugnant. A lot of people in the West find satisfaction in exercising repugnant authoritarianism.
"A lot of" is a conveniently vague quantity. However you quantify it, it's absolutely nothing near the scale of institutional and cultural support for authoritarianism in China.
This kind of anti-nuance approach is problematic for two reasons. For one, it serves the propagandistic purpose of sheltering China from criticism by falsely equating them to the US. For another, if you're constantly equivocating between completely different scales of moral error, you're not going to understand when one set of practices is better than another and you're not going to be able grasp what moral progress looks in a complicated world.
Forceful de-platforming isn't criticism. Criticism is argument. Force isn't argument. De-monetizing videos for unstated political motivations isn't criticism, it's censorship. Making irrational noise, intimidating, pounding on windows, lighting shops on fire, throwing things through windows -- those things aren't criticism. That is force, and many of those are examples of criminal acts. It's non-governmental censorship.
So many of the things which the Extreme Left use as a means of "convincing" people are the exact same things which bigots of the past did to black people and gay people:
- exclusion from clubs and professional organizations
- public rudeness, yelling
- refusal to serve
- not renting homes and apartments
- getting them fired
You can tell the good people from the bad people this way: When the bad people win, it's time for them to unleash their acrimony and to do unto others. When the good people win, they hew to their principles and exercise forbearance and generosity.
I'd argue that's not entirely true. Consider, for example, the fact that corporate prisons exist in America. I would say there is a difference in governance, but I hesitate to speculate about cultural differences.
Yes, they are. The reason "the people who would do this don't yet have 100% coverage over society" is precisely because, at least for now, principles in the West find this sort of authoritarianism repugnant. This is exactly the kind of false equivalency the parent is talking about.