Information overload as harmful? Argument in favour of authoritarianism.

submitted by HibikiBlackCaudillo from self.conspiracy

With the development of technology people have access to information as they never did before. I think this is a wonderful result of science and a proof of its power. But the ruling class have known to take advantage of it to manipulate the massess. With so much contradicting information, they can always manipulate the herds through pop culture. Children are all the more likely to be harmed by this.

While technology advancing in this fashion is good, people can't be trusted to properly judge which memes are the best for society and which aren't. People are likely to fall prey to evil groups in power too, this technology should be regulated by ethical authorities.

all 10 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Jackalope 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Idk Hibiki...I feel like the fact the ruling class manipulates the masses with technology is a good argument against authoritarianism.

I have not seen a system that was not susceptible to corruption, resulting in the very wrong sorts of people in charge.

[–]HibikiBlackCaudillo[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

How much time do people waste on hedonistic pursuits when they aren't moderated by authorities? That should tell you all you need to know. No one is perfect but to say that there's never been good authorities is historically innacurate. Even when it comes to exposing the government, despite the rampant corruption of the media there are still honest people out there that work for the sake of ethical journalism.

[–]Jackalope 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

How much time do people waste on hedonistic pursuits when they aren't moderated by authorities?

I think this is more complex than you are allowing for. If those people choose hedonic pursuits, and aren't hurting anyone else, I am not sure it is moral to use authority to modify that behavior. You or I might feel like some other behavior is 'better' for them, but do we have a right to force this value judgement on them? I think that the common good is an important factor but so is maintaining free will - individualism and collectivism are both necessary to some extent for human beings to thrive. I think there is a balance to these qualities that we probably haven't found the perfect formula for yet.

[–]HibikiBlackCaudillo[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I agree. The collectivism of a nationalist group shouldn't supress people's individuality either, since I think there is a value in the subjectivity of each person. However, their freedom isn't above the responsibilities they have with their own people.

[–]Jackalope 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

These are issues are I often think about, so I appreciate your perspective.

I have some questions about the responsibilities you speak of. It seems like I am essentially property of whatever nation I am fortunate/unfortunate enough to be born into. I have not really opted into this arrangement, nor can I opt out of it. If Biden and 51% of the public say I need a mRNA shot do I? How about if they want me to do something truly terrible? I guess it isn't clear to me how you are defining responsibility in this context.

I'll say this, if I had voluntarily joined a nation, and wanted to stay rather than go somewhere else, then yes - I have a responsibility to go along with the plan whatever it may be - my continued presence there is implicit agreement to the terms of conduct. Where this obligation originates from and what its boundaries are in the context of involuntary membership in a state, is something I am not so clear on (this arrangement seems fundamentally different than relationship to band or clan or tribe that likely existed throughout the majority of human history), but I am interested to hear any ideas and arguments you might have.

Again, I hope you don't take this haranguing you, I have a genuine philosophical interest in this subject and am interested in your thoughts. Still, feel free to ignore me at any time if my discourse becomes tiresome!

[–]HibikiBlackCaudillo[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Don't worry about it. To me, things like philosophical truth and ethics aren't subjective at all, but even sacred. And I don't even follow any specific religion and I am an agnostic. You aren't separate from your environment. The structures people in a certain nation use are there thanks to the efforts of your ancestors, so you have the duty to honor them. Some traditions are mediocre and should probably be replaced, others are excellent. Nowadays, the ideology that dominates the NWO and globalism is libertarianism and capitalism itself... They want people away from their traditions, groups and ethnic identities...

My idea of ethics is similar to what Plato described as the Forms. I don't like Plato all that much but I have to admit that I'm similar to him when it comes to describing ethics and the role philosophy should have in society. Like I said, to me things like philosophical truth and ethics aren't subjective at all and even sacred.

This Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism discussion reminds me of the final MGS2 talk with the corrupted AI, in which Raiden tries to defend his right for free will, while the AI claims to have the authority to manipulate others for their own good. As I've grown older, I've started to side with the AI more than with Raiden, but I don't think either is completely right when it comes to ethics:

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/m08l9n/mgs2_final_ai_conversation_about_the_effects_of/

And don't worry, I enjoy philosophy a lot. I think a lot of the issues society has today is a result of people not knowing much about philosophy and history.

[–]Jackalope 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Nowadays, the ideology that dominates the NWO and globalism is libertarianism and capitalism itself... They want people away from their traditions, groups and ethnic identities...

Yes this is troublesome. Like many ideologies, capitalism has some troubling consequences when it is taken too far. The incentive to make billions of dollars while ignoring externalites i.e. privatizing profit and publicizing the costs, is enormously destructive in the hands of todays global mega corporations. The NWO has some veery dangerous ideas about globalism in regards to social aspects as you also mention as well.

This Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism discussion reminds me of the final MGS2 talk with the corrupted AI

Yeah I think this is an important discussion. Its pretty clear that these structures of authority are necessary for any society larger than a few dozen people. I don't think we have found the perfect balance yet, and I admit I don't know where it is either. Personally, I admit I tend to err on the side of Raiden when I feel like I am on unfirm ontological ground.

And don't worry, I enjoy philosophy a lot. I think a lot of the issues society has today is a result of people not knowing much about philosophy and history.

I really agree with this. I feel like we have really devalued history and philosophy as a society, likely because the products of philosophy are hard to measure in terms of economic value in a capitalist system. We should all want to reckon with how to structure society so that we can live more fulfilling lives, and glad to see I'm not the only person thinking about these things.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Access to information allows people to access whatever they want. The reason people believes lies or waste it on hedonism is because rulers have kept most people in the aesthetic stage of life according to Kierkegaard. Those at the higher stages can learn whatsoever they want.

Even Plato believed the average person is like a prisoner in the cave: philosopher kings should run society.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

should be regulated by ethical authorities

wait wait, I think I've heard this one before...

[–]naples 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You sound like you're onto something Broski.

What most of the peasants don't seem to understand is that Democracy was an experiment. America almost went forward with a monarchy but our proposed Monarch George Washington backed out at the last moment. Democracy is an inherent pessimism that government can't produce effective monarchs.
America's efforts to extend Democracy simply stem from a false interpretation of Monroe Doctrine. Prior to this unfortunate event America was more opportunist (read: practical) about allying with monarchs if the monarchs were astute rulers or were simply friendly to America. The Democracy building business would have seemed absurd at the time, though it's now reached blanket acceptance. Team America, world police?