The only reason that you hold your opinions is because you have been deceived by propaganda media, and you’re too small minded to see it.

Rant: From politics to Bitcoin, this silly non-argument is in common use.

Keeping up with the Bitcoin drama, and the split in the community and chain, I’m reminded of politics. The discussion in the Bitcoin space has had a similar quality about it recently as that in the political space over the past few years. Stubborn irreconcilability, character attacks and the continuous assertion that those of a different mind are being deceived. In the discussion over SegWit2x, one argument I’ve commonly heard is that r/Bitcoin is censored. This has always appeared to me as an odd thing to say. “And so what if it is censored?”, I might reply. But there is an unspoken assumption behind the argument, where the complete argument would be “r/Bitcoin is censored, you get your information from r/Bitcoin, you don’t perceive that it’s propaganda and thus you’ve been deceived.”

This truly is a non-argument, as anyone could say this to anyone, about anything. “No, it’s you that has fooled yourself, with the media you’ve consumed.”, I easily could reply, and it would be just as meaningless.

I’m sure that r/Bitcoin is censored, but the whole argument can only be true if you use it (I don’t), and you’re too dim to notice that it’s censored (yes I see it). This argument really is no better than just simply asserting “You’re stupid, and if you weren’t so stupid you’d see the world like I do.”

In politics, this suspicion of others as being easily fooled by false information is common. I’ve long been against the European Union, as it’s an Orwellian nightmare, and so personally was delighted with the recent referendum known as Brexit. To later be accused of being a Daily Mail reader (I’m not, but so what if I was?), is evidence of this fear popping up again. To this day many people in the UK arrogantly cling to the idea that those who voted against the E.U. were somehow fooled, deceived, led astray by false promises. That you can have an informed and intelligent argument against the E.U. doesn’t seem to be a possibility for some. Only the toothless bigots on the council estate, with their football shirts and England flags, jeering over the channel at Johnny foreigner, only they could vote leave, surely.

The belief that the common man is a sheep, easily fooled and manipulated by the right message, is prevalent. The term ‘populism’ has come into common use in the media more often, in describing political parties and their supporters. Populism suggests democracy gone wrong, where enough of the dim-witted were fooled to vote for things that are actually detrimental to them. Accept the general credulity and gullibility of the average person and authoritarian actions appear to look ethical. If people can be lead astray by certain information, then does it make sense to protect them from these harmful ideas? Should people even have agency over their own state of government, or are they too stupid for that? After Brexit we witnessed idiots like Bob Geldof saying the vote should just be ignored, by which I suppose he means the common person should be disenfranchised of their right to vote. The surreal spectacle of Eddy Izzard leading anti-Brexit protesters, whose demands appeared to be that the will of the proven minority take precedence over the will of the proven majority. Behind this hysteria, we find the same belief, the same fear that the common man is a fool, a half-wit who can’t be trusted to understand how to vote intelligently. From this viewpoint the average working person seems to be analogous to cattle; to be properly looked after and cared for, yes of course, but to be given any agency over their lives? Fuck, no! They’re too ignorant to understand all the nuances.

The fear of harmful ideas, and the damage they can do to others was why this Google engineer was topically removed from his post a few weeks ago. The Google CEO’s memo on the dismissal speaks volumes.

“First, let me say that we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Our job is to build great products for users that make a difference in their lives. To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK. It is contrary to our basic values and our Code of Conduct, which expects “each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination.” - Sundar Pichai

So there you have it, some ideas are harmful and people must be protected from them. And this, therefore implies, that there must be somebody who decides which ideas are good and bad, that is, which opinions can be voiced and which must be forcibly silenced. Who should this person or group of people be? By what criteria do they make their judgment? How could this go wrong?

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” -Voltaire

The alternative view is one of trusting the individual to have the intelligence to sort good ideas from bad, that trusts you may be able to fool some people sometimes, but you can’t all of the people all of the time. This is the position of liberty for the individual, free speech and treating people as adults. It is also the position of historical awareness, as giving the power to silence the opinion of others is too great a power to be trusted to anyone, and abuses of that power will surly follow. To censor peoples free expression because of some moral slight in the here and now is unwise, unprincipled and leads to an unpleasant dictatorial society.

Bayon.