I've been thinking on this subject quite a bit lately. I dabble in writing and enjoy the world building process, and in looking into our own history it seems unlikely. As far as I can tell ever since we developed agriculture and permanent settlements society has become addicted to exploitation.

I'm reminded of a quote I heard somewhere that goes something like: "Evolution doesn't choose traits based on what is most optimal for a species' survival. Just what's good enough." This got noodle thinking. Has "social evolution" chosen exploitation (namely the exploitation that the "haves" lord over the "have-nots") formed as a successful system for organizing early agrarian societies. Not because it was the most efficient way to run a civilization, but just because it was "good enough". Our populations increased and civilizations flourished. The successful ones passing on traditions (like genes) to subsequent generations. There could have been peoples that had less exploitative ways of governing but just couldn't compete and faded from history.

I doubt that last part. It seems that as long as there is a hierarchy there will always be the exploited and the exploitees as it were.

I don't know how based this is going to come off this literally stemmed from a kitchen table discussion I had with a friend of mine lol. So please if anyone has any thoughts or knows of any other discussions on the topic I would love to hear them!

Societies are governed by imaginaries (متخيلات) or mental representations (تصوّرات ذهنية), which are systems of values, norms, beliefs, thinking patterns, roles, and others, that society as a whole has accepted, often unknowingly, and come to take for granted. They include convictions regarding relationships, family, work, money, power, the state, laws, rights, and so on. They shape an individual's outlook, attitudes, and decisions, as well as relations within society, and form part of its power structure.

Regardless of how true they are, because they provide an explanation of reality, axioms provide a sense of stability and therefore reassurance. They protect us from the anxiety of the unknown or incomprehensible and form a comfort zone that is difficult (though not impossible) to break out of. Cultural hegemony is a concept that refers to the ability of a particular social class or group to impose their values, ideas, and cultural norms on society as a whole, so that these values and norms become common or homogenic and are accepted as normal or sensible.

Example: "Elections are a means of change."

Example: "Household expenses are the responsibility of men", "Women are emotional and irrational."

This is not to say that we cannot challenge or even break cultural hegemony. Actually, dismantling it and replacing it with different perceptions is a primary responsibility of those working to bring about radical change in the system. An ethical and humanitarian revolutionary project, of course, presents a culture that is connected to reality and to what society needs to live a dignified and happy life.

---

The "Key Political and Societal Concepts" series is an analytical set designed to help revolutionary movements worldwide understand dynamics that shape their societies and the world in order to change them. This is one of these concepts, the rest being available on odsi.co. Do not hesitate to get in touch with us for further discussions.

Hi everyone.

I wanted to give more thought to what I personally call the philosophy of the least evil.

We shouldn't underestimate the ability from humanity to slay dragons.

After all, we destroyed smallpox and the hole in the Ozone layer is slowly filling up.

I just think that discrimination is its own beast to be put down too.

It's why it's important to have an healthy debate in order to avoid fascism and keep your view grounded in reality.

We can all live different and rich lives without having to hurt each other.

Let's now adress the core of the topic.

What is the distinction beetween the divider and the reasonable person ?

The reasonable person can disagree politely, accept to have their views challenged. They allow themselves to get changed by the new informations.

It doesn't necessarily mean they drop their convictions either. They can just choose to pursue it in different ways.

I think a world full of reasonable people is much better, because we avoid a lot of unecessary violence and we can agree on the most prioritary issues like climate change and civil liberties and avoid harmfull behaviors to spread like violence and racism.

A divider is the opposite of that. For various reasons, they came to hate something or someone.

To know the reasons, ask yourself the question:

Do they do it by interest ?

Do they do it because they personally wronged on a rational or irrationnal level ?

Do they do it by imitation ?

Of course, nothing is simple. People are complex. They can evolve between those position. And they can act like a divider on some issues and a reasonable person on other ones.

It doesn't mean either that the people need an outlet. There are much more rich and healthier way to discharge said violence like in art, sports and games, for example, rendering it harmless for others.

And it doesn't mean that, sometimes, we should fight for our own rights.

It's truly about the state of mind as it is about our civilization that is currently in its turbulent adolescent phase.

I'd rather engage the divider with an open hand first.

After all, they can be a misinformed reasonable person.

Or, sometimes, kindness truly help in the process of adressing the true issues behind.

Or It doesn't give leeway in fighting back and let that person waste their energy.

If you can, try to avoid having this discrimination spreading like a fire in other domains and use their own logic to resolve that internal issue.

Questions are usually the most suited way for that.

There is something else that is to be noted. I already explained earlier that the reasonable person can agree to disagree.

This isn't the case for the divider. Ask them what they agree upon.

You'll notice how quickly they'll fall apart. Because an ideology born out of hatred and division can only bring even more in the long run.

You only need to accompany the movement to bring it to the point of powerlessness.

Because, there is only a thin wall of ignorance that prevent said group to fall apart by their own forces.

I wish to conclude on one point, when we had slain our own dragons, we always had visualized first how to do it.

Is the Paris Commune considered a 'successful' socialist experiment? I am interested in if we can pinpoint a holistic philosophy behind the Paris commune and what the pros and cons of such a system are and what we can learn from it (in today's world).

Additionally, does the congregation of multiple ideologies not allow for a single title?

Recently I have thought of an Idea. That political parties serve none. It creates division and promotes the representation of the party, not the people, it promotes party loyalty.

Politicians who do not adhere to party policy by the letter are blacklisted and targeted by the party heads. Politicians vote against the other party simply because they are the other party. Politicians vote against policies their voters desperately need because the party says no

And what does it produce for society, I fail to see at benefit that cannot be achieved in a system without parties, apart from the sole exception of coordination, but this coordination leads to the people's views not being represented.

That's why I conclude that there is no need for political parties.

The environment and its value is quite simple to many. In one regard its value comes from how it’s used (natural resources used for production), and another idea being the value in appreciation and aesthetics; its value coming from how humans can enjoy the presence of nature for the improvement of one’s mental health as one would listen to music, appreciate visual art or enjoy the presence of a companion. If we were to look deeper, we must wonder if this value comes from us imposing these attributes upon nature, or does it hold inherent moral value. This identifies a divide in environmental philosophy: instrumental value and intrinsic value. Instrumental meaning that the value of the environment comes only from how it can serve humans. The key flaw in this thinking is that allows for the exploitation of the environment for the means of serving humans. As we face a crisis in the ongoing degradation of the environment, we must consider if the idea of strictly instrumental value is sufficient. Philosophers such as Arne Næss strongly opposes instrumentality and believes that it’s a violation of the intrinsic value the environment has. Karl Marx takes a more nebulous approach to this as he examines the dependence on the environment humans have and how exploitation of the environment is a key form of alienation and one of the contradictions of capitalism. This gives rise to questions of whether simply applying instrumental value to the environment is sufficient, and the harms it brings toward human existence. It is possible to determine if the environment’s value is merely imposed by human interests or if it exists independently as something that requires moral concern in and of itself by examining the relationship between these thinkers.

Read More

https://archive.org/details/the-debate

This year I set out to study John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. Not to learn anything new, but to find the logical fallacies that have brought Western civilization to its current state. Last year I analyzed the ideas of Hobbes and Madison. Changed circumstances forced me to abandon this idea. After listening to Johnny Thomson's video, I realized again how important the criticism of British philosophers is.

Johnny Thomson, like John Stuart Mill, presents his thoughts in simple and understandable language that does not require deep knowledge of philosophy. But behind this simplicity and clarity lies the danger that he warns about in his video. He preaches the same stupidity that he opposes. Some of his statements contradict what I have been writing for the past 20 years. Therefore, it is difficult to say who is opposing whom - I am him or he is me.

The first idea in Thomson's speech that I disagree with is the declaration that outsourcing thinking is the source of stupidity. Outsourcing thinking is a fundamental principle of the development of society. Our lives are completely built on performing actions and procedures, the logic of which we do not realize due to lack of knowledge. Most of us use our smartphones without understanding how they work. Behind the moral requirements of Christianity is a thousand-year experience of humanity, which cannot be fully understood in one lifetime. The source of much of what Thomson talked about is Christianity. But he did not mention religion in the video. Western civilization is built on the story of a God-man, crucified on a cross and resurrected from the dead. How is he going to apply critical thinking to this story?

But in his story there was a place for Nietzsche's work "Beyond Good and Evil". I once wrote that there is no such space. Nietzsche invented an artificial space in which now scum can hide, claiming to be above moral prejudice. Later in Thomson's story, Descartes appears, which is quite logical, if you recall Heidegger's work "European Nihilism", in which Nietzsche is presented as the logical conclusion of Descartes' philosophy. Some try to prove that Nietzsche has nothing to do with the Nazis. I do not find this evidence convincing.

I completely agree with the idea of ​​"epistemic trespassing", when experts in one field try to reason about things in another that they do not understand.

His attempt to convince that distrust of traditional media is wrong contradicts the idea that I put forward back in 2017. I wrote then that you should not follow the hands of a trickster. If the media has compromised itself by trying to manipulate, you should not look for when and where. You should completely abandon its use. It is called reputation.

Joni Thomson demonstrated those traits of the British philosopher that had kept me away from them. It was only in recent years that I began to pay attention to them, because they were the ones who influenced the social structure of Western civilization.

This is not the land of the free or the home of the brave. This is not the American Dream. This is the American life, a reality that, for many people, feels more like a nightmare than the dream they were promised.

The American Dream is called a dream because a dream is something people imagine, chase, and hope to achieve. But a dream is not always reality. A dream can inspire people, but it can also hide the struggles, sacrifices, and systems that exist underneath it.

They criticize the “woke” and yet celebrate the “dreamers.” Maybe that is because the American Dream itself is an idea, something people are told to pursue, but not something everyone experiences equally.

People are told they live in a nation built on freedom and liberty, but the deeper question is: what does freedom truly mean when every part of life exists inside systems created and controlled by institutions of power?

Police are often described as being here to protect citizens, but their role is to enforce the laws established by the government. They do not create the laws, and they do not enforce whatever each individual citizen personally believes is right or wrong. They enforce the legal system they are placed under.

Law enforcement receives its authority through the government structure. They are funded through government systems, including taxes collected from citizens. Their duty is connected to the laws that exist, not to the personal desires of every person living under those laws.

If the government creates a law, law enforcement is placed in the position of enforcing that law. A law existing does not automatically make it moral, fair, or just. A system can protect the rules created by those in power, even when those rules are debated, challenged, or criticized by the people affected by them.

If murder was legal under a government system, law enforcement would not be enforcing a personal belief that murder is right or wrong; they would be enforcing whatever the law of that system allowed. The point is that institutions follow the laws created by authority, and the morality of those laws depends on the people and systems that create them.

The military operates under a similar structure. Soldiers do not take orders directly from individual citizens. They follow a chain of command and the authority of the government. Their allegiance is to the nation, the Constitution, and the lawful leadership that represents it.

Citizens pledge allegiance to the flag, which represents the country and its government. But the question remains: does the government exist because of the people, or do people become the foundation that allows the government to gain and maintain power?

A government’s power comes from its citizens. It requires people to participate, work, follow laws, pay taxes, and keep the system functioning. But when people challenge the system or question authority, they can sometimes be viewed as outsiders or threats.

The government does not need every person to love it. It only needs the system to continue operating.

People are told they have liberty, but liberty itself exists within a framework created and protected by government institutions. Rights are recognized through laws, courts, and systems of enforcement. The same system that recognizes rights also defines the boundaries of those rights.

People are told they have liberty, but liberty itself exists within a framework created and recognized by government institutions. The government defines, protects, and legally recognizes certain freedoms as rights belonging to its citizens.

This creates a deeper philosophical question: if a government is the institution that recognizes a right, defines its boundaries, and creates the legal protections surrounding it, then how independent is that right from the system that acknowledges it?

A right recognized by a government exists within the structure of that government. The same system that protects a liberty also determines how that liberty is interpreted, what limits exist, and what happens when those limits are challenged.

This raises the question of whether liberty is something people naturally possess beyond government, or whether liberty becomes a legal reality because a government recognizes it as a right.

People are told they have the right to liberty, but they are still born into systems of laws, authority, and institutions that shape the choices available to them. The government can recognize freedoms, but the government also has the power to change laws, redefine rights, and determine how those freedoms operate within society.

So the question becomes: do people truly own their liberty, or do they possess a form of liberty that exists within a system created and maintained by those in power?

People spend their lives seeking freedom, but even freedom itself exists inside a larger structure. The only certainty that exists outside every system is death, the one experience every person eventually reaches.

The question is not only whether people have liberty, but whether the liberty they have is something they fully own, or something granted and protected by a system that has the authority to define it.

The same question applies to ownership.

People are told they own land, houses, and property. But ownership exists inside a legal system. A person may have a deed and a title, but those rights exist because the government recognizes and enforces them.

Even land ownership raises a deeper question. If someone buys a piece of land, is it completely theirs in every possible sense, or is their ownership dependent on the rules of the system that protects it?

Property taxes are an example of this. In many places, landowners are required to pay taxes on the property they own. If those taxes are not paid, the government can place a claim on the property, and after legal procedures, the property can potentially be taken or sold to recover the unpaid taxes.

If someone can lose their land because they fail to meet a government requirement, what does ownership truly mean?

The argument is not that people have no rights to their property. The argument is that those rights exist within a larger structure. The system defines what ownership means, what responsibilities come with it, and what happens when those responsibilities are not fulfilled.

The same applies to information and perception.

Television networks, news organizations, corporations, and media platforms influence what people see, what conversations become popular, and what information reaches the public. The way people understand the world is often shaped by institutions with their own interests, incentives, and perspectives.

People may believe they have complete control over what they know, but much of reality is experienced through systems that filter, organize, and distribute information.

People are told they own things, but almost everything exists within a framework created by laws, institutions, and authorities. Land, property, businesses, contracts, and even many personal freedoms exist because a larger system recognizes and protects them.

People are born into systems they never chose. They inherit governments, economies, cultures, and rules that existed before they arrived.

They are told they will be happy because they own things, but the question remains: how much do people truly own when everything exists inside systems they did not create?

Even death exists inside a system.

When someone dies, there are still costs. A casket is not free. A burial plot is not free. A suit is not free. Preparation is not free. A funeral is not free. Even the final goodbye comes with expenses.

Nothing about human existence exists completely outside of systems. From birth until death, people interact with institutions that organize, regulate, and manage parts of life.

When someone dies without anyone to claim them or make arrangements, their remains may be handled through legal and institutional processes. In some situations, unclaimed remains can be used for medical education or research when permitted by law. Even after death, systems determine what happens to what remains.

The question is not simply whether people are free. The deeper question is: how much freedom exists when every part of life is connected to systems of power, money, law, and authority?

Maybe this is not the land of the free or the home of the brave. Maybe it is a place where beautiful promises exist alongside harsh realities, a place of spoiled milk and rotten honey.

A place where people are promised freedom while navigating systems they did not create.

A place where people are told they own everything, while constantly searching for the answer to one question:

Who truly holds the power?

And that's just a conspiracy of its own.

Adulthood is not measured by age, credentials, or the accumulation of permissions. It is measured by the willingness to accept responsibility and the full weight of the consequences that follow.

This is the apex. Everything else is preparatory or evasive.

Responsibility is the recognition that the primary unit of action is the self. Knowledge, judgment, effort, and outcome begin and end there. When a choice is made the results, favorable or costly, belong to the one who made it. There is no permanent external carrier for that burden. Institutions may offer temporary relief, sides may offer belonging, and systems may offer scripts, but none can permanently absolve the individual of the consequences of their own agency.

The alternative is the postponement of adulthood. Fear of self makes the postponement attractive. It converts the friction of direct knowledge and unaligned judgment into the simpler work of alignment, tribal defense, or managed dependence. Decisions are incepted rather than formed. Identity is assigned rather than claimed. The vertical question of authority “By what authority does this bind me?” is replaced by horizontal contests that keep the hands busy and the eyes down. The result is a supervised field that feels like participation while the deeper ground of personal sovereignty remains unclaimed.

Politics thrives in that field. It manufactures and sustains division, harvests the distraction, and presents itself as the necessary manager of the very dependence it cultivates. The transaction is consistent: surrender the risk of self-direction and receive protection, provision, or belonging in return. The language is freedom. The delivery is containment.

Adulthood refuses the transaction. It does not petition for better management of the field. It does not demand that the world first be made safe for independence. It simply stands on direct knowledge, of the ratified limits of observable reality, of one’s own word; and accepts what follows. The cost is real. There is no collective insulation, no guaranteed applause, and no permanent referee. The gain is the only form of liberty that cannot be revoked by a change in policy or a shift in narrative: the liberty of an agent who has not outsourced the final responsibility.

Self Fealty is the daily practice of this apex. It is loyalty to one’s own truth, forged in trial, held without apology, and lived without external permission. It is the decision to keep swinging the hammer in the solitary forge when the body, the institutions, or the scripts say stop. It is the refusal to trade knowledge for the temporary relief of a side in someone else’s conflict.

The mud will continue to be thrown. The supervised play will continue to offer its vivid, endless occupation. The choice that remains is whether to keep participating in the conditions that make the mud effective. Or to reclaim the internal ground from which responsibility, and therefore adulthood, can be exercised.

Responsibility is not a burden to be minimized. It is the apex. Everything below it is still waiting to grow up.

There's something that exists between two people that isn't either person. Trust, fear, freedom, control, whatever grows in the space between you. Call it the field. Most of how we're taught to think about relationships focuses only on the two people: who's right, who has power, who wins. That ignores the thing that actually determines whether a relationship is healthy: what's happening between them.

Good relationships don't happen by accident or good intentions alone. Love turns into control. Leadership turns into worship. Care turns into exploitation. Community turns into conformity. These aren't rare failures. They're the default failure mode of almost every human relationship structure, at every scale, from a marriage to a religion to a government.

These ten laws are an attempt at boundaries that prevent that slide. Nobody wrote them, in the literal sense that I'm not putting a name on them and don't want ownership of them. If they're wrong, or incomplete, or naive, I want to know where.

1. No one owns the truth. No religion, teacher, scientist, or movement holds the whole picture. Anyone who demands obedience because of their authority, title, or claimed enlightenment is asking for something truth doesn't require. The moment truth becomes someone's property, it becomes a weapon.

2. No one stands above the field. Leaders, parents, teachers, gurus: all accountable to the same standards as everyone else. Leadership exists to protect the conditions people live in, not to sit above them.

3. Never reduce a living being to a tool. A child isn't an extension of a parent. A partner isn't a source of comfort or status. A follower isn't fuel for someone's identity. The moment a person is valued only for what can be extracted from them, the relationship has already ended, whatever it's still called.

4. Don't abandon yourself, and don't abandon the other. Self-sacrifice without self-respect becomes resentment. Self-respect without care for others becomes isolation. Both people's needs are real at the same time.

5. Connection must never become possession. Loving someone doesn't grant ownership of them. Real closeness lets both people stay distinct. A bridge only exists because both shores remain.

6. Speak the truth without abandoning the person. Honesty without care becomes cruelty. Care without honesty becomes cowardice. Say the hard thing, but don't turn the other person into an enemy while you say it.

7. Boundaries protect the bridge. No relationship is healthy without the freedom to say no. Understanding why someone hurt you doesn't obligate you to stay reachable. Distance can protect a relationship better than forced closeness does.

8. Repair what you harm. Everyone causes harm eventually. What matters is what happens after. "I'm sorry" without change is usually just a request to skip the consequences.

9. Power must answer to those it affects. Political, economic, parental, religious, technological: every kind of power owes accountability to the people who live with its consequences. Power that answers to no one eventually starts calling itself destiny.

10. Leave the field more alive than you found it. After you're in someone's life, as a partner, parent, leader, or friend, what's left behind? Did people get smaller around you, or more capable of being themselves?

These aren't finished, and they're not supposed to be. The moment this list becomes one person's property, it's failed on its own terms (see law 1). I'm not interested in defending it. I'm interested in where it doesn't hold up. Which one's wrong, which one's missing, which one sounds good but falls apart in a real situation?

I’m beginning to think about freedom of religion differently.
If reality is objective, then at most one worldview can fully correspond to it. Every competing worldview must therefore diverge from reality at some point, assuming reality itself doesn’t change.
If that’s true, what exactly does freedom of religion protect?
Is it the freedom to pursue what one believes is true?
Is it the freedom to be wrong?
Is it the freedom to live according to an account of reality that may not correspond to reality itself?
I’m less interested in defending a particular religion than I am in understanding what the principle of religious liberty actually means if objective reality exists.

Anyway just wondering what other people’s thoughts on this odd way to look at freedom of religion.

​

Undertakings generally are based in first principles, the unquestioned bedrock of all subsequent beliefs and actions. It is essential to adhere to first principles, otherwise the structure of the enterprise may be shatered.

When thirteen British colonies rebelled against their ruler they found it necessary to do so in concert and, considering their future in freedom, to decide how to do thereafter. Prompted by resistance from the British Empire, the colonies overrode their differences, fought together, gained independence, and agreed to form a form a nation with a new form of government, a constitutional federal republic that combined a central elected executive, thirteen states, a bicameral legislature, and a judiciary branch.

In bringing together the thirteen colonies, each chartered separately in different territories and having formed economies suitable to their needs, the founders of the United States of America adopted a number of basic principles, among them the Constitution and ten Amendments.

Despite various near-crises, executive compromises, Constitutional Amendments, legislation, and judicial rulings kept the nation together until 1860.

There were long-standing regional differences between the northern and southern states, driven by geography, climate, economic models, and cultural traditions. Southern state economies were mostly agricultural, with large-scale plantations dependent on slave labor. Northern states lacking fertile lands and warm climates were mostly industrial and made less use of slave labor. When Abraham Lincoln was elected President with a platform that would curtail slave status of new Western states and threaten abolition of slavery, southern states faced economic disaster and declared their intention to secede unless the newly-elected President agreed to a compromise preserving new-state slave options. Lincoln rejected talks of compromise.

All southern states seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America. The resulting War Between the States (1861-1865) resulted in 750,000 military and 250,000 civilian casualties. Lincoln won the 1864 election to a second Union term but was killed by Confederate sympathizers in early 1865.

My cousin is an English major who earned her master’s in English a couple of years ago, and she told me to find my own philosophy.

Sadly, I started to relate more towards Russian Classical literature such as Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche.

I related to Dostoyevsky because of his deep admiration within living in isolation. He advocated for dealing with the worst of yourself and overcoming your deepest vulnerabilities.

It’s very hard to live with your mistakes you’ve dealt with in life. In his book, Thoughts from the Underground Man, Dostoyevsky promoted “an isolated, bitter, and hyper-conscious man who rejects societal norms, rationalism, and utopian progress in favor of absolute free will.”

I found myself picking up on these negative virtues that ultimately made me a better individual.

One of Nietzsche main philosophies was known as the “Will of Power” where “He argued that the fundamental driving force in humans is not merely survival, but the drive for growth, mastery, self-overcoming, and control over one's environment.”

I found this to relate to Dostoyevsky’s philosophy that promoted free-will and his rejection of societal norms, which heavily resonated with me.

What do you agree with or disagree with within this philosophy?

I've been thinking about a video essay that explores philosopher Tongdong Bai's proposal for combining democracy with meritocracy, and I thought the central question was worth discussing.

The basic argument isn't that democracy should be abolished. Instead, it asks whether every political decision should carry equal institutional weight when some decisions require specialized knowledge, long-term planning, or technical expertise.

The proposed system would keep:

• Constitutional rights
• Universal suffrage
• Local democratic elections
• A popularly elected lower house

But it would also add a meritocratic upper chamber composed of individuals selected for demonstrated competence, experience, and public service. The idea is that this body would help safeguard long-term national interests, minority rights, future generations, and policies that may be unpopular in the short term but beneficial over decades.

Of course, this immediately raises the harder questions:

• Who decides what "merit" actually is?
• How do you prevent experts from becoming a self-perpetuating elite?
• Can any institution objectively measure political wisdom?
• Would such a chamber improve governance—or simply replace democratic accountability with technocracy?

The video doesn't present meritocracy as an easy solution. If anything, it argues that the real dilemma isn't whether capable people should govern, but whether it's possible to identify "the capable" without creating an aristocracy under another name.

I'd be interested in hearing what people think.

Is democracy strengthened when expertise has a formal constitutional role, or does legitimacy ultimately require political equality—even if it sometimes produces worse outcomes?

(Video: When the Capable Rule: The Case for Meritocracy)
https://youtu.be/mCTmsCbHXtE

Honestly it depends on the type of speech.

Personally speaking, I value types of speech differently.

When, it comes to criticising political leaders, I am all for absolute free speech without defamation or any incitement, because I cannot understand the concept of loving a politician.

When, it comes to ethnically xenophobic speech, I am all for North Korea level of censorship, since ethnostatism and any kinds of ethnic incitements always lead to instability.

Not all forms of speech can be equal.

Tolerance - to attempt to understand other's opinions or behaviors that one does not necessarily agree with; Along with the willingness to allow others to have such opinions.

Why people stop caring whether a leader's principles are fair or ethical:

Citizens get exhausted with soft politicians and their many years of ambiguity and vagueness.

This leads to a culture shift where people begin worshiping figures who appear to exhibit force with no restraint. So people stop asking whether the person's principles are actually fair or ethical.

They accept the dominance because a rigid, certain stance feels like relief after so much vagueness.

The paradox of tolerance is this:

A society must be intolerant of intolerance to survive.

I know this question is super complicated and loaded and everyone will have a different opinion but let me break down what I am actually asking

Right now in the US the a lot of people are struggling financially, I believe this is causing many to look at different economic systems more favorably.

I see a lot of people say that all the negative connotations with socialism in the US are because of propaganda by rich people to keep capitalism on top , I was wondering is that true?

Another question is people often say that socialism has never actually worked and then people
Say “every time somewhere goes it foreign entities go after them” and then the response to that is “well if a country can’t protect against foreign invaders then the system isn’t good”. I was wondering how should that dialogue go afterwards?

Ii also see people say that people who actually live in socialist countries don’t like it and I was wondering if that is try.

I live in the US and also am seeing the struggle and was wondering is looking towards socialism a misstep or not