> Nanny state is a term coined by tobacco industry in their lobbying against tobacco laws. Is it really a term you want to use here?
Sure, because most people h ave no idea where the term originates from and it now has a life of its own. It's the standard term for this sort of thing.
There are many articles and documentaries about the impact of smoking adoption due to tobacco companies advertising primarily to kids.
Even if we disregard all the science, the fact that the very companies themselves were targeting kids shows that they knew where their money was coming from.
The problem is Australians are fine with it. They might be the population with the most people saying "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" in the world, by a large margin.
Australia has always been a nanny state though. Not even letting some games or movies in to the country because they think it's inappropriate for adults to consume for example. Ridiculous.
> It is still better than other forms of governance, that seems like a low bar.
It's definitely a problem when you have a huge segment of the population that is ignorant and easily misled. Just look at the last US election.
There are definitely better systems, but people are far too attached to the status quo and find it far easier to dismiss proposed solutions rather than work to improve them.
It's because we've reached a point where the average conservative rhetoric is toxic, harmful and generally flat out incorrect. Political lines are now about acknowledging facts or not, and being bigoted or not. Places like Bluesky that don't allow misinformation or bigotry are of course going to be harsh on the political party that thrives on both.
> It's because we've reached a point where the average conservative rhetoric is toxic, harmful and generally flat out incorrect.
Yes, but not particularly.
> Political lines are now about acknowledging facts or not
Political lines are about which facts you accept. On many of the social issues of today, which are far more contentious than economic ones, liberal "facts" are often two lies and a half-truth wearing a trench coat. What liberals[1] want is a monopoly over which facts are on the table, and for all discussion to take place within that framing. And accusations of toxicity, harm, disinformation, and bigotry, are employed as rhetorical tools to preserve that monopoly.
[1]: By "liberals" here I don't mean average liberal voters, but politicians, pundits, influencers, and the class of affluent, politically-engaged people who tend to set the tone generally.
> Political lines are about which facts you accept.
Right, one side outright makes up lies and denies things.
> liberal "facts" are often two lies and a half-truth wearing a trench coat.
I see your footnote, it's still nonsense. Conservatives outright lie, Trump an JD outright admitted to making up the story about Haitians eating pets which did incredible harm to a community, and conservatives lapped it up and asked for seconds instead of, you know, holding them accountable.
reply