Libertarians often argue that the best antidote to bad speech is more speech. What Vladimir Putin discovered was that the best antidote to more speech was bad speech.
Oh this one is so much fun. Everybody gets to be mad! Libertarian fan of Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris? You’ll hate it. Liberal believer in social justice and structural power analysis? You will not walk away happy.
The real short version is that tribalism affects everyone whether we like it or not.
The slightly longer version is that there is an ongoing societal debate on the internet over… basic philosophy, I guess. Should we evaluate speech claims as isolated factual truths, to live and die on their own based on whether they map to reality? Or should we evaluate them as political acts, intrinsically bound to their context, to society, to power structures, and to the speaker?
Hint: the real answer is “both”.
Disclaimer: I don’t necessarily agree with or endorse everything that I link to. I link to things that are interesting and/or thought-provoking. Caveat lector.
There is something to this one that seems to strike home for me. The idea of “success” as ultimately unsatisfying is something that doesn’t get talked about enough. Give me a family and community any day of the week.
This is, honestly, not really a valid “other opinions” piece, it’s just something I’ve been working on for a while in my real job and am therefore proud of.