I’m definitely not looking for a centrist view, in fact kind of the opposite. Other than bans on bigotry/hate speech, I really don’t want to be boxed into a singular way of thinking.

I don’t mind if I end up interacting with or hearing views from people who are more centrist or radical, as long as there isn’t an all or nothing/hive mind kind of way of thinking about those POVs.

I am definitely more left, I wouldn’t call myself a radical, but if I talked to someone who identified as a moderate, they might consider my opinions far left compared to their own POV, whereas somebody who is extreme left might consider me left of center.

I understand there are some people who truly have all or nothing beliefs, but I am also suspicious that movements on the left are often hijacked by bad actors in order to keep people as divided as possible.

Even the idea of a “tankie” as it’s used online, seems like it’s often just meant to further divide the left during a time when extremists on the far right are trying to keep people divided and distracted in order to maintain the power and control they have achieved.

It’s almost like union busting tactics being used against political beliefs instead of labor. As long as people have a core set of values they agree on regarding human rights and liberty, I feel like it’s in our best interest to unite against extremists on the far right, even if we don’t always agree 100% on everything else.

I may be overthinking the specific instance thing, and I think somebody already answered this, but I guess originally I was thinking, if I joined an instance with say a focus on technology, would I still be able to create a community with a political focus, or would I need to join an instance with a focus on politics in order to do that?

If I did need to join an instance focused on politics, would I then be 100% constrained by political beliefs of that instance to fit a narrative? Like if I felt there was evidence that justified a criticism of someone that’s normally placed on a pedestal, would I be free to say that.

It seems like most instances would allow political communities even if the focus of the instance isn’t political, so probably a moot point anyway.

I’m not really looking for any one specific perspective, I just don’t want to help strengthen an echo chamber whether it’s spreading disinformation, edge lords saying shitty things to make some kind of Fred Phelps like point about free speech, or just set on ignoring valid information in order to keep pushing an agenda regardless of facts

What are the worst instances?

I feel like a “good balance” inherently means accepting that you will probably see some things you don’t agree with or support, but you can also present your own case for why you don’t agree without attacking the person who posted it, or just keep scrolling past that to something else.

A bad balance would be just imbalance where everyone in a community is trying to push one single opinion/agenda, and if anything contradicts that opinion, even if it’s well supported by evidence, it results in removal of content or a ban.

That seems to be the real root of suppression of information. Like if someone is told from the time they join an instance or a community that bigotry/abusive speech isn’t allowed, and then they use a bunch of slurs or abusive language, they’ve violated a rule, and it seems like that really shouldn’t surprise anyone that would need to be addressed.

If someone can’t present evidence contradicting a popular narrative, or critique an argument, idea, or a public individual without getting banned, that is an issue.

People can disagree with what is said/downvote it/present their own evidence why they disagree/or ignore it and block the person, but if it’s not intentionally violating a rule, you shouldn’t have a bunch of people reporting it as being a violation just because they don’t like it.

I think it would have motivated more people to vote against him.

The voter turnout was only like ~32% when he ran

Louisiana leans conservative but we got Edwards elected twice after the Jindal backlash. If this new DOGE voter database system doesn’t just purge everyone from the system, I think somebody else could run against him and win after his first term

“You can’t do anything without coming to us first, by going through several other individuals who will then be able to contact some Trump administration appointees who are completely removed from the research you’re publishing, but will determine if and where you can publish it or speak publicly about it. Because we hate bureaucracy so much!”

Trying to imagine the kind of person that actually downvotes comments like this… Genuinely curious, what are you even disagreeing with?

This changes nothing, and really shouldn’t surprise anyone bc most people just assumed he was, based on his constantly bizarre behavior, from doing a fucking Nazi salute on stage to the micro moments like when he looked like he was glitching/buffering during Trump’s inauguration.

Given that the administration pretty successfully managed to gaslight the entire nation after two nazi salutes, that we all saw, I doubt we would even be seeing so many negative headlines about Musk right now if the narrative wasn’t intentionally being shifted that way by people in the white house. He went from the untouchable dark force who was running the country, to the guy in the cheese hat that annoyed everyone and who gave himself bladder issues by doing too much ketamine.

Thiel got him to serve as the face of dismantling the federal government, and then pushed him aside once Kratsios was confirmed by the senate. Stealing government data to dump into AI was something they have had planned since Trump’s first administration. They just needed a public scapegoat, and Musk was more than willing to take the bait.

That said, have people seriously forgotten that in every headline any accusation is always “alleged” even if it’s something like rape or murder?

I haven’t read them yet, but I’m hoping to. It seems like he has some books actually focused on religion, but i’m not sure how much it actually comes up in this one.

If it does at all, it doesn’t seem like he weaponized Christianity against non Christians. His views on it actually sound pretty interesting

Ellul identified himself as a Christian anarchist. Ellul explained his view in this way: “By anarchy I mean first an absolute rejection of violence.” And, “… Jesus was not only a socialist but an anarchist – and I want to stress here that I regard anarchism as the fullest and most serious form of socialism.” For him, this meant that nation-states as the primary sources of violence in the modern era, should neither be praised nor feared, but continually questioned and challenged.

The Technological Society, a book that, decades after its publication, feels less like a historical analysis and more like a chilling prophecy unfolding before our eyes. It’s a book that forces us to confront a profound truth: We are not just using technology; we are being used by it.

The common fear is that of robots rising up, or machines taking over, but Ellul points to a far more subtle and insidious threat: the rise of “Technique.” This isn’t simply about machines or gadgets. It’s about the principle of efficiency becoming the dominant force in all human endeavors. Technique, in Ellul’s view, is the search for the “one best means” to achieve any given end. It is the relentless pursuit of the optimal, applied not just to industrial production, but to politics, education, medicine, even our personal relationships. Think about it: data driven decisions, algorithmic recommendations, metrics to measure everything from happiness to productivity. This is Technique at work.

Anything that slows down the process, anything that deviates from the optimal path, a moment of spontaneous creativity, a lengthy conversation that isn’t productive, a decision based on intuition or empathy rather than data, becomes an inefficiency. Something to be minimized or eliminated.

Was discussing this book in a different post earlier I’ve always wanted read it but never had a chance.

Definitely seems relevant for a lot of reasons.

Thanks! Might repost that link instead.

I actually only know about it bc it’s the book that seemed to send Ted Kaczynski over the edge lol.

It’s pretty spooky how accurate it has become especially since it was written so long ago.

To be fair, he was probably the youngest and most vulnerable participant, and the experiment lasted 3 years. He started attending Harvard at 16, and was probably around 16/17 when the study began.

They used psychological warfare on a kid who was already socially reserved on top of feeling alienated from his peers due to his age, and likely stressed due to being away from his family and home for the first time in his young life. During a developmental period that we now recognize is probably the most critical window for young men in particular to develop a mental illness like schizophrenia, they did this:

Subjects were told they would debate personal philosophy with a fellow student and were asked to write essays detailing their personal beliefs and aspirations. The essays were given to an anonymous individual who would confront and belittle the subject in what Murray himself called “vehement, sweeping, and personally abusive” attacks, using the content of the essays as ammunition. Kaczynski spent 200 hours as part of the study.

Like holy shit…

True, and I didn’t mean it in a necessarily derogatory way in terms of judgment for his mental illness, but for his actions. I know I should be more careful about saying things like that, and didn’t mean to imply anything negative about people who struggle with mental illness.

It’s complicated. Nobody should have had to go through what he did, but something awful somebody went through can’t be used as a justification for them doing something awful to somebody else. It can be the reason they did it, and it may arguably make them not fully responsible for their own behavior, but it also doesn’t make them an innocent.

This dude was a pos bc he hurt so many people for no real reason, but when you read about the stuff he was worried about, it’s eerily accurate. It’s like he crawled inside Peter Thiel’s head, got a glimpse of his plans, and that’s what set him off the deep end.

Editing to add, he was already in a very vulnerable state mentally when he decided to drop out of society, very likely related to an unethical psychological experiment he “participated” in at Harvard.

The Technological Society is the book he read while living in the wilderness that actually seemed to inspire his writings.

Ellul argues that modern society is being dominated by technique, which he defines as a series of means that are established to achieve an end. Technique is ultimately focused on the concept of efficiency. The term “technique” is to be comprehended in its broadest possible meaning as it touches upon virtually all areas of life, including science, automation, but also politics and human relations.

I mean…

I mean this is why you have different security clearances. Nobody working in the social security administration should have full access to my speeding tickets from 20 years ago, or find out if I was on Medicaid at some point in my life with a single click.

This is very different than making a formal documented request. It enables people to discriminate on information that they shouldn’t know in the first place, and keeps anyone from holding them accountable for it.

Not to mention, if it’s used the way other people have used it, it allows the government to discriminate against other people for just having a loose connection to somebody else.

Oh you grew up poor? Your parents were divorced? The algorithm has determined that makes you high risk, now those things that weren’t even in your control will influence everything you do for the rest of your life.

Data is Destiny

If people already working for Palantir are like “wow, this could be bad.” You know it’s got to be nightmare fuel

Imagine all the realtime surveillance tracking they’re already doing in some U.S. cities and then having the ability to pull up all of this other info in one place with a single click as you’re being targeted.

Occam’s razor says too much ketamine and Twitter, but maybe he tried to undo the damage with a chip

Works on contingency. No money down.

Works on contingency? No, money down!

I mean I don’t believe there is anything that makes it worth that value, but there are people who will fall prey to the hype. Maybe less so now that Elon has destroyed his Brand and can’t even move Teslas, but it is concerning that he was given this FDA certification and also seems to have potentially been kind of rewarded to keep quiet and disappear from the administration.

The economy is absolutely in the toilet right now, then suddenly the same day he and Trump break up, somebody invests $600M in his shitty biotech that can’t even stay glued in place?

Not to mention, this seems to have happened within days of a competitor company announcing they will be launching their own neural chip by the end of the year

Yep, I bought one like 10 years ago bc I thought it was cool. The fact that people are letting Elon musk insert a fucking chip in their brain to achieve the same tech that’s been available for over 10 years is just 🤯