Vectorfield @Vectorfield@qoto.org

@solidotbot Solidot似乎改变了风格。观点的比重增加了，语言风格变得口语化了。

@SlightCold 即便twitter自己不想当正义使者，它身后的政客和激进的左翼活动人士也会逼着它当正义使者。另一个原因则是twitter经常被指责针对西方国的右派，对中共和伊斯兰政权却网开一面，因此显得十分虚伪。为了摆脱这种指责，twitter干脆一条路走到底，封禁一切在它看来不合适的观念。一但接受了审查的逻辑，审查的范围便只会越扩越大。

@solidotbot 可以看到，"更广泛的正义"会如何轻易地成为破坏自由的理由。

@freemo I feel no reason to believe as if free speech infringements only comes from the state, especially in this context where most censorships are done by corporations, media and other non-government institutions. It should be kept in mind that the social settings in which the first amendment was made is very different from the one we are now living in. The biggest threat of free speech is always from the powerful Orthodoxies trying to ban unpopular and heretic opinions, be it the state, the press, the news outlets, the big tech, the mob, or the social circles where only a very narrow range of opinions are allowed.
.

@digforfire 这是好事

@thucydides @nil

"1619 is not a year that most Americans know as a notable date in our country’s history. Those who do are at most a tiny fraction of those who can tell you that 1776 is the year of our nation’s birth. What if, however, we were to tell you that this fact, which is taught in our schools and unanimously celebrated every Fourth of July, is wrong, and that the country’s true birth date, the moment that our defining contradictions first came into the world, was in late August of 1619?"

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/20/magazine/1619-intro.html

"Conveniently left out of our founding mythology is the fact that one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery. By 1776, Britain had grown deeply conflicted over its role in the barbaric institution that had reshaped the Western Hemisphere. "

"In other words, we may never have revolted against Britain if some of the founders had not understood that slavery empowered them to do so; nor if they had not believed that independence was required in order to ensure that slavery would continue. It is not incidental that 10 of this nation’s first 12 presidents were enslavers, and some might argue that this nation was founded not as a democracy but as a slavocracy."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/14/magazine/black-history-american-democracy.html

"For Enlightenment intellectuals, the metaphor of light typically had a double meaning. Europeans had rediscovered learning after a thousand years in religious darkness, and their bright continental beacon of insight existed in the midst of a “dark” world not yet touched by light. Light, then, became a metaphor for Europeanness, and therefore Whiteness, a notion that Benjamin Franklin and his philosophical society eagerly embraced and imported to the colonies. … Enlightenment ideas gave legitimacy to this long-held racist “partiality,” the connection between lightness and Whiteness and reason, on the one hand, and between darkness and Blackness and ignorance, on the other. "

Ibram X. Kendi, Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America (New York: 2017), p. 80.


"White empiricism is the practice of allowing social discourse to insert itself into empirical reasoning about physics, and it actively harms the development of comprehensive understandings of the natural world by precluding putting provincial European ideas about science—which have become dominant through colonial force—into conversation with ideas that are more strongly associated with “indigeneity,” whether it is African indigeneity or another. "

“Making Black Women Scientists under White Empiricism: The Racialization of Epistemology in Physics”
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/704991

https://web.archive.org/web/20191226164931/

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/10/23/1619-o23.html

@wsb@noctilucent.blue @Kalokagathie@liker.social 我觉得封锁城市，禁止集会，要求戴口罩这类举措，都是可以接受的。个人自由当然很重要，但公众的生命健康同样重要，一个公民不仅应该有权利意识，也应当有责任意识，这次新冠病毒算是致死率低的，但万一下次出现一个致死率更高的病毒呢？万一出现了别的紧急情况，比如战争呢？要是缺乏应对紧急情况的策略，民主制度便是不可持续的。有些时候为了共同体的存续，个人是需要暂时放弃一些自由的。但这种放弃是有限度的。即便是在战时，政府也不能取消反对党，取消言论自由(只能进行有限的管制)，将公民的财产充公，强制劳改，等等。对全体公民进行无差别监视，或是未经搜查定强闯民宅便是越界了。

然而根据我的观察，在反对控疫措施的人中间，的确有那些不在乎公众的安危，一点自由也不肯放手的人，但更多人是出自对政府的不信任，他们害怕政府的手一但伸过来，就不愿再收回去了。这种不信任是有道理的，因为他们的政府有过利用危机扩权，在危机后也不归还权力的先例，以后很可能还是这样。这就涉及到另一个问题，就是在美国这样的国家为什么会出现普通民众对现有机构的信任危机(不只只是对政府的不信任，也不只是对政治机构的不信任，还包括了对整个学术界，教育界，媒体界，科技界的不信任。)。这是一个值得研究的问题，我个人认为这是因为这些掌握了大量资源和影响力的机构辜负了人民的信任。如果这种信任危机不解决，那就不光是无法应对一场病毒了，而是任何问题都解决不了。

回到原文上，Greenwald在这里谈论的其实并不是怎样的抗疫措施是合适的，或者是封城会怎样损害人们的行动自由，他是一个记者，他所关心的其实更多的是新闻自由，言论自由，以及更广义的政治自由。在新冠大流行之前，他所描述的现象就已经十分严重了，既便并没有新冠大流行，他所描述的事情也会继续发生。在川普还没有上台的时候，主流媒体和民主党就在渲染川普和他的支持者的可怕，川普上台后，这种歇斯底里便达到了一个高潮，在新冠爆发后，这种歇斯底里则达到了巅峰，即使川普下台之后，这种恐慌制造也不会停止，因为恐慌带来了金钱和权力。

他在这里表达的另一个意思则是，民主党在此次竞选采取的策略是"目的先于手段''，既然川普是一个十恶不赦的坏蛋，那么只要能把川普搞下台，用什么手段都可以，比如说把媒体当成政治宣传的工具，在社交媒体上封锁川普的账号，限制对拜登不利信息的传播，对川普进行弹劾等等。这些手段在短期对民主党有利，但在长期对美国和美国人的自由会带来难以想象的危害，川普和他的支持者不会自动消失，因为导致川普现象出现的问题依然存在。民主党和左派没有正面问题，而是试图利用下流的手段把这个问题压下去，这会给美国和美国人的自由带来恶劣的影响，并且埋下一个定时炸弹。