Zuzak

My brother is a veteran, and when he came back he started "self-medicating" with meth to treat his PTSD. He was constantly on the verge of crisis and making violent threats (carefully phrased to not be actionable). At the time, I was working at an Amazon warehouse, at times doing 60 hours weeks, and at the time I was on Facebook and if I got off work and wanted to check it, he'd see I was online and if I left him on read it would be a whole thing. I described it as being a 911 operator on call 24/7. I basically wrote him off as dead to me, but my parents wouldn't and that was the worst part. I remember visiting and we tried to go out for dinner but then he texted my mom with another crisis and now she's in tears again, like always. It was constant. And he'd accuse them of all sorts of stuff, my mom still had one of those phones you had to press the button multiple times to get a letter and if she had a typo he'd accuse her of doing it on purpose. All he did all day was be alone with his thoughts, going through the same cycles, shooting up meth and absorbing whatever crazy right-wing bullshit he was listening to.

My parents are pretty well off and they were there for him. They tried to check him into all sorts of mental hospitals and rehab, but he'd check himself out early. There was an incident early on where he checked himself into the VA and they tried to cut him off Xanax cold turkey, which is potentially life-threatening, and he responded violently. This put a flag on his record which made it difficult to get him treatment later, and he was also careful to phrase his threats ambiguously enough to not be institutionalized.

It was pretty clear to me that this was only going to end one way, and at one point I thought about going up there and killing him myself, before he could hurt an innocent person. But the cops kept a watch on his house until it happened and he took a gun and led them on a car chase to somebody's house, pulled a gun on them, and got shot in the arm. When I heard it happened, I didn't know if he'd live or die and didn't care, I was just relieved that it had finally happened and that nobody else got hurt. He went to jail for a bit and that got him off the meth so he's doing better now.

What really gets me about it though is how easy we got off, though. Compared to the people on the other side of the war, the people actually living in Iraq and Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered, countless civilians. The children terrified of sunny days because that's when the drones fly. How many times over do you have to multiply the pain and suffering I felt when I saw my mother's face in tears to get even an inkling of the suffering inflicted on those people?

And it's all just out of sight, out of mind. We went to war and people hardly even noticed, everybody just went about their lives as normal like it wasn't even happening. People don't even give a shit about veterans killing themselves on the daily in VA parking lots and waiting rooms because they can't get care, they sure as shit don't care about brown people on the other side of the world that the news treats as subhuman. And now, Bush gets rehabilitated on Ellen and the libs expect me to vote for Biden. It's absurd how little people care about all the people they murdered.

I suppose time will tell whether that trend will grow to the point of being really significant. I don't really trust the state as it stands to regulate speech in my interests. I do still believe in deplatforming hate speech when possible, and I don't really see the marketplace of ideas as being reliable due to certain ideas having stronger signals, either from monetary backing or grabbing attention. As things stand though, I don't really have a better answer than just personally using the fediverse over big social media sites.

Is the tendency for devisive content to be promoted a quirk of certain social media platforms, or is something more inherent? I'd argue that people are more likely to click on something if it presents a message of, "You are under attack!!" as opposed to say, "Firefighter rescues kitten from tree!" because the former invokes more and more powerful emotions. Brains are designed to seek out and pay attention to threats, and I think even something like a print newspaper is going to be subject to that incentive, at least to a degree.

The other question I have is:

What we need to do is take away the power social media companies have to influence the types and quantity of information we receive.

Do you mean through state regulation, or just consumer choice?

I agree with you in part, but:

Societies which stifle dissent, especially using the power of the state, grow weaker because they aren't able to effectively adapt to change. Remember it is not too long ago that advocating for gay marriage would have been seen as morally deviant and repugnant. But strong speech protections allow us as a society to have that discussion and come to the correct conclusion which is that it's fine to be gay, that love is love, and that gay people deserve equal protection under the law.

Free speech is also allowing a massive, astroturfed campaign to spread transphobia. The people with the most money have the loudest voices, and printing sensationalist bigotry to provoke fear, anger, and hate gets the clicks which makes more money.

What makes it especially terrifying, and I'm speaking from personal experience, is that you don't know who's on the other side of the screen. Most people in the target audience will just get a little pissy and keep clicking headlines (and voting to take away rights), but there's also people who are unstable, whether due to drugs or psychological issues or simply being too deep into the narrative. When you have for example far-right media outlets saying trans people are pedophiles, and more mainstream sources validating that perspective in not so many words, and that's being broadcast to some meth head watching hours on end every day, then I'm not really a fan of that speech being free.

Just last weekend, for instance, some queer friends and I were threatened by an unstable person with a metal pipe just walking down the street, idk how much the media plays into that but I also had a family member who did what I described above, shooting up meth and watching shit like OAN all day every day. And even regular people who watch too much cable news, and it doesn't even matter that much what they watch, if you try to reason with them, no matter how much sense you make or what facts you have on your side, it's one conversation vs all the time they've spent watching the news - I like to compare it to trying to win an argument when the other side gets to say 100 words (or more) every time you say 1. In this way, good ideas don't always win in the marketplace of ideas.

But yeah I agree with your overall point, sanctioning someone for interviewing a world leader is some bullshit, fuck Tucker Carlson but it's always important to understand rival geopolitical powers.

It fuels my rage every time I see people talk about an increase in military spending "only" being a small percentage of the current budget, as if the budget wasn't ridiculously bloated. The way this is phrased makes it sound as though the money came out of the Pentagon's budget, too.

Great comment

Nooooo I only got a billion dollars last month

That's the point. He did basically what you said he should do. It's like you're saying, "I agree with his decisions, I just don't agree with the outcomes they led too." I don't have any information on when precisely Stalin decided he wanted Trotsky dead, but you can't just assume that he can write his name in a death note and have him drop immediately, and if one guy surviving ten years in a foreign country can destroy an entire revolutionary project just by writing then tbh it seems like the whole thing was doomed from the start. You can't predict every such case, it's not a valid criticism.

Stalin did have Trotsky killed though, eventually. I just feel like you're looking back with the benefit of hindsight and seeing things, not necessarily with Trotsky specifically, but generally being like, "The problem is they let bad people come to power instead of good people," and that's not a valid criticism if it's something that you can only see in hindsight. Did Stalin let people he thought were reactionary/revisionist hang around? If so, why, if not, then was Stalin's method of determining who was bad flawed, and in what way? You can't just say "these people shouldn't have come to power" you have to look at why they came to power and how they could have been identified and prevented.

I meant for Mao, but for Stalin is also relevant. I still don't see criticism or suggestions, just "these people were concerning."

But what's the specific criticism, about what should've been done differently?