> The influencer+scam industry, in an economically constrained period, can lead to an evolution of our belief system, from the liberal 'i get what i deserve, mostly' to the fascist 'if I'm not as (good/well of/...) as I can be, it's because of this outgroup, and particularly him'. Both are fondamental attribution error fallacy, but one is really, really more violent than the other.
A heckler's veto, even a potentially fatal one, isn't an acceptable reason to curtail rights. In justifying such bad reasoning on the grounds of the violence that may ensue, you're arguing that one must preemptively surrender to terrorism.
You're also making an error of you're own: a slippery slope. By what method would this liberal society you speak of descend into fascism? And why a fascist state? Why not an monarchial empire? Mass violence isn't particularly limited to any one kind of government.
I'm not talking about the state, this isn't one of my fear right now. I'm saying that our current belief system is mostly liberal, where we attribute success and failure more to ourselves rather than luck, to the system we live in, or to the outgroup.
This is sort of a 'leftward' evolution of the old monarchist belief system where your success is based on your bloodline, whereas the 'rightward' evolution is fascism, where your failure are because the outgroup is cheating, empowered by traitors in your ingroup (thus all methods to reinforce your ingroup are good).
I'm afraid than right now, our belief system (i call it belief system, but the author i stole it from talked about the foundational myth of our ideologies) is shifting from one to the other.
And btw, i just realized that this can be misinterpreted (it's also the first time I've presented the thought like this), but I'm sure I've done this political commentary way before 2021, as I've found this definition in 2018.
Reply to the heckler veto and terrorism: no, that should not be acceptable, and yes, this is like surrendering to terrorism.
First, it's not the main cause.
Second, the main job of the government is to ensure stable society. I'm pretty sure the consensus on crypto isn't 'lets make everything more stable', rather the opposite. I'm not saying that they're right, and in an utopia without bad actors, they would be absolutely wrong. It's more complicated than that though.
A heckler's veto, even a potentially fatal one, isn't an acceptable reason to curtail rights. In justifying such bad reasoning on the grounds of the violence that may ensue, you're arguing that one must preemptively surrender to terrorism.
You're also making an error of you're own: a slippery slope. By what method would this liberal society you speak of descend into fascism? And why a fascist state? Why not an monarchial empire? Mass violence isn't particularly limited to any one kind of government.