Re:Supreme Court rules to uphold TikTok ban, setting stage f...
by tptacek on Friday January 17, 2025 @04:19PM
(#42743369)
What interventions could you not justify using this logic?
Re:Supreme Court rules to uphold TikTok ban, setting stage f...
by SequoiaHope on Saturday January 18, 2025 @02:57PM
(#42750948)
What a strange question. The interventions which would be unjustified are too numerous to list.
Re:Supreme Court rules to uphold TikTok ban, setting stage f...
by rayiner on Friday January 17, 2025 @01:40PM
(#42741784)
That's the notion of "false consciousness" that Marxists trot out to justify why they're right even though people don't agree with them. It's a tool for academics to justify imposing themselves as right-thinking elites who know better than the unwashed masses.
Re:Supreme Court rules to uphold TikTok ban, setting stage f...
by SequoiaHope on Friday January 17, 2025 @03:58PM
(#42743151)
I disagree strongly with any authoritarian rule, but it is probably correct that the masses don’t actually know the best way to run society. That doesn’t mean we need to impose rule, it means we need to understand manufacturing consent (which is a distinct concept from false consciousness and well supported by the facts), it means we need to combat manufactured consent and better educate people.
One could take the position that this process is so flawed as to be illegitimate. In this case it would be a valid position to believe that society had not fairly decided these things, and they were instead decided by a certain class of people and pushed on to the rest of us.
See: A Propaganda Model, by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky: https://chomsky.info/consent01/