It’s just… we’re used to the old way in the United States. The new zeitgeist is authoritarian and cannot argue, it resorts to censorship, blocking, whatever. The “American way” I’m familiar with believed that disagreement could be overcome with kindness, arguments, and setting good examples, and so on. Today’s crop praised acts of civil disobedience (breaking the law illegally) for racial causes, but do not support it for causes they disagree with. They supported illegal actions against the Nazi regime which was authoritarian, but not their brand of authoritarian measures that others don’t agree with. That raises important questions that should be discussed critically as a philosophy of law: are all people judges of the law? How are legitimate legal wrongs to be made right? Can disagreeing views be accommodated or not?
For example with the masks, a lot of places could have just given people the decision to make if they want them or not. If a person didn’t feel comfortable being around unmasked people, they could not go to that location and attempts could have been made to accommodate them with a separated location. With the mandates at government buildings for example, there was no ability to accommodate people who didn’t want to wear masks, so it was one-sided. The other poster says there were no mandates… I wasn’t aware of that, I thought various federal / government buildings indeed did require masks. Private places certainly did and could be criticized for doing so (they criticize Twitter for its moderation as a private entity, yet do not find the same criticisms we make of private institutions on their mask policies to be acceptable…)
edit: also I guess I am wondering where the non-authoritarian leftists are. I know they’re out there somewhere. The previous anti-authoritarian left was anti-war, but flipped because Trump became anti-war. They were vehemently anti-censorship, quoting Voltaire (which seems to be a misattributed quote allegedly) that they might disagree with what people say, but would “defend their right to say it”. And so on and so forth.
It’s just… we’re used to the old way in the United States. The new zeitgeist is authoritarian and cannot argue, it resorts to censorship, blocking, whatever. The “American way” I’m familiar with believed that disagreement could be overcome with kindness, arguments, and setting good examples, and so on. Today’s crop praised acts of civil disobedience (breaking the law illegally) for racial causes, but do not support it for causes they disagree with. They supported illegal actions against the Nazi regime which was authoritarian, but not their brand of authoritarian measures that others don’t agree with. That raises important questions that should be discussed critically as a philosophy of law: are all people judges of the law? How are legitimate legal wrongs to be made right? Can disagreeing views be accommodated or not?
For example with the masks, a lot of places could have just given people the decision to make if they want them or not. If a person didn’t feel comfortable being around unmasked people, they could not go to that location and attempts could have been made to accommodate them with a separated location. With the mandates at government buildings for example, there was no ability to accommodate people who didn’t want to wear masks, so it was one-sided. The other poster says there were no mandates… I wasn’t aware of that, I thought various federal / government buildings indeed did require masks. Private places certainly did and could be criticized for doing so (they criticize Twitter for its moderation as a private entity, yet do not find the same criticisms we make of private institutions on their mask policies to be acceptable…)
edit: also I guess I am wondering where the non-authoritarian leftists are. I know they’re out there somewhere. The previous anti-authoritarian left was anti-war, but flipped because Trump became anti-war. They were vehemently anti-censorship, quoting Voltaire (which seems to be a misattributed quote allegedly) that they might disagree with what people say, but would “defend their right to say it”. And so on and so forth.