"Arguably, it is as a consequence of the erosion of civil liberties in democratic countries since 9/11 that we have seen the rise of toxic enthno-nationalism and its associated violence, not as a result of too much of the wrong kinds of speech."
Nor as a lack of always-on mass surveillance of the whole population. Anyone who wants that is welcome to move to China, they always need more English teachers ...
@strypey Thanks for publishing this. This is the most comprehensive argument I've ever seen against using mass surveillance as a potential solution to anything.
@njoseph glad you like it. My take hasn't been received that well in Aotearoa just yet, but someone has to be the first point out the nakedness of the Emperor ...
@njoseph I've been working on a more general essay on this, but I'm finding it hard to decide how to order the points I want to make, and what to include and exclude to keep it from getting too long. Any feedback welcome.
'Fear' is the short version. I wouldn't blame 9/11 for everything bad that is happening. We have seen similar rise of nationalism before. Like the war in former Yugoslavia.
People are more alone today. Party thanks to neoliberal policies. Solidarity is not really something on peoples minds today. Rather, "what will I get out of this", is.
@shellkr sure, I agree with all of this. To be clear, I'm not blaming 9/11 itself, but the way it was used in the #5Eyes countries and throughout Europe, as a justification for all manner of increased surveillance, warrantless searches, militarized policing, security theatre, backdooring of network services, crackdowns on end-user encryption etc etc etc. All to protect an increasingly unpopular globalizing capitalism (#PeterThiel et al) from an equally globalizing democracy.
@strypey @njoseph Yes and no... the Internet have been a major shift to culture and people are generally afraid for stuff they don't understand. Not just technology but also people. Change is a constant and so is distractions. We don't have time and take shortcuts. Which means ex. relying on centralized services.
I think the globalization as a thing is good though. It brings people closer to each other.
But.. as you said... capitalism... greed... makes us unempathetic.
> globalization as a thing is good though. It brings people closer to each other.
Note that I didn't say "globalization", which is a meaningless term unless you specify globalization *of what*. I specifically said "globalizing capitalism", which does bring people closer together, in the same way any prison does. I think what you're saying is that the globalization of informal community via the internet is good, which I agree with. But we don't need capitalism for that.
@strypey gonna be mulling this one over, thanks for writing it!
@alana thanks for reading it, and for the positive feedback. I really appreciate that you took the time to do both, and I'd love to read anything that comes out of your mulling :)