November 28, 2023

Society always has difficulty drawing lines around acceptable communication. One problem is not recognizing the difference between methodology and content. Usually, the problem is methodology, while tendencies are to control content.

Any content should usually be freely discussed, as long as methodology is suitable for rationality. It's the methodology that needs to be watched, not usually the content. But there is an obsession over content due to the power mongering tendencies of deciders.

The problem of methodology vs content is the same problem as promoting rationality. The problem is too basic and moralistic to be fixed. But the nature of the problem needs to be evaluated in both cases.

Rationality is evaluation of surrounding realities, so people can decide for themselves what objective reality is. Truth will always evolve forward, when realities interact. That means allowing the interaction of realities is how objective reality should be determined, not by someone arbitrating the result.

Yet there is close to a universal tendency to arbitrate realities, which can never result in proper determination of what objective reality is. If the result is arbitrated, it is not an evolution of truth and will not result in complete truth.

An extreme example of the problem is the subject of vaccinations. Many persons assume vaccination was a life or death matter during the pandemic and therefore wanted to arbitrate the subject. Should people be allowed to die due to someone having the wrong views on vaccination?

There is a governmental process for setting laws on such life or death matters. That means there needs to be a focus on the governmental process instead of the opinions of the public. There was no such discussion during the pandemic. In fact, the governmental processes of the bureaucracies were stripped of functionality by the Trump Administration just before the pandemic occurred.

The Trump Administration relentlessly tried to reduce bureaucracies to nonfunctionality based on the theme that such activities were "deep state." The stated plan for a next Trump Administration is to carry the attack upon bureaucracies further by creating a mechanism for stripping governmental employees of job protections, so top level employees can be sidelined or shoved out.

Since there needs to be governmental processes and rules during major problems, that is where the focus should be including the openness and accountability for properly aligning results in a democratic manner. Yet the bureaucracies operate behind closed doors which prevents proper results.

It's a truism that the darkness of unaccountability promotes corruption, because rationality and truth cannot prevail without openness and accountability. Corrupters will always prevail in significant activities in such darkness. That's because corrupters operate by force and violence, while nothing but truth stands in their way. Truth is the communicated representation of unified reality. It cannot be produced without the communication which allows the required interaction of realities.

After the government has properly determined what rules and regulations should be, the public needs the right to discuss the subject matter. Open discussion will always improve the realities on the largest scale, as long as the scope is open to public evaluation. But if the scale is too limited, almost anything goes with not good results.

Therefore, the question of censorship should be focussed on the mechanism rather than the content. Is the methodology suitable for proper interaction of realities; or are realities being railroaded onto someone including vulnerable persons such as youngsters? That question does not get properly addressed in the attempts to arbitrate content.

The usual assumption is that the answer to a lot of questions have already been determined and should not be subject to erroneous claims. Fact checking follows that assumption. But there is no such thing as answers being determined. The fact checking methodology is never going to produce correct realities.

Arbitrating realities including fact checking can never produce proper realities, because proper must include open ended information on any subject. Whoever gets the information cannot be limited to the ungodly reductionistic realities of fact checking and still understand a subject.

Notice the difference between understanding the complexities of a subject and imposing miniscule quips. Important subjects are large and have unlimited questions. Imposing quips can never be adequate in relating to such subjects.

For example, Robert Kennedy Jr gets constantly trashed for being anti-vaccine. He keeps saying he is not anti-vaccine; but he doesn't get to decide that for himself. He says he opposes harmfulness of vaccines, not vaccines; and no one accuses him of being anti-fish when he opposes mercury in fish.

So why cut off discussion of a subject with trite accusations? Only because incompetents want to prevail with their ignorant assumptions. Rational persons don't need to cut realities down to trite assumptions; only ignorant corrupters do.

If someone assumes some error is being promoted, it is easier to criticize the error than to impose a version of reality. Imposing reality is like pushing a rock up a hill; correcting reality is like rolling a rock down a hill. So why the wrong path? Only because incompetent corrupters want to prevail without the demanding task of acquiring and explaining the necessary knowledge through proper interactions of realities.

In journalism, where fact checking is commonly applied, why not explain the subject instead of having nameless frauds impose facts? Railroad jobs are imposed by frauds who cannot tolerate rationality. They have too much to hide to allow critics to influence the subject.

Of course the most obvious example of fraud being imposed is fake science and technology. Fact checkers must always be those who impose the frauds.

The problem now days is social media, where the fixers try to decide what to omit or remove. They only go from bad to worse trying to fix realities. Instead of removing bad realities on social media, injecting some rationality would be an improvement instead of a Constitution defying degradation of social realities.

That means adding explanations were bad realities exist instead of picking winners and losers based upon the values of power mongering corrupters. Then the erroneous realities become constructive examples of what erroneous thought problems are and what the corrections are.

Putting errors up against rationality will always expose the errors as errors and replace them with improved realities. The result then becomes valuable in showing what is wrong with the errors.

Of course, there must always be limitations in allowing filth which has no reality element, which has been endlessly argued in the past. And then there is the new concept of organizing destructive activities. Organizational purposes are a lot easier to define and limit than reality sanctioning.

To a large extent, the opposite of these procedures are being produced, the simple reason being that incompetent power mongers want realities to be degraded; so they can exploit the darkness. That means the more basic problem is power mongers fighting a war against rationality.

Power mongers corrupt methodologies; so the correction needs to be viewed in terms of methodologies—rationality vs fraud and darkness—rather than the censoring process based on selecting the desirable realities to promote.

Who then determines what rationality is? No one decides that. Rationality requires alternatives to be visible particularly as criticism. There are infinite methods of doing so. Journalists do some of that in the form of opinions; but much more direct and concise statements and criticisms are needed for social media.