This was a very enjoyable interview. I'm not familiar with Richard Seymour or his work, but he came off as even-handed, charming and insightful. The interviewer was great as well. Anyone who references Darmok is a-ok in my book.

It's difficult to respond to this, to be honest. There was a lot of content, all of which could be interesting avenues to explore. I'll shoot out some darts and see where they land, I guess.

First, overall, the takeaway I got of Richard's perspective is less a specific issue with Twitter, and more a commentary of internet culture in general, in that it inevitably brings out the worst in people. As he stated, trolls existed before the internet. The problem seems multivariable. The internet offers anonymity, which emboldens beyond-the-pail points of view and behaviors (trolling, harassment, etc). It also offers a potential megaphone to these warped perspectives. And the tendency of the human condition to be enthralled by schadenfreude pretty much guarantees these behaviors will be magnified. He accents these points with some poignant examples, from TikTok content creators throwing cheese on their babies for views to people he knew being wrongfully accused of pedophilia being driven to suicide.

What he doesn't give in the interview (from what I could gather) was a prescription for these problems. At least, not beyond personal vigilance. I certainly did not glean that he was pro-censorship. Perhaps he discusses this further in his works, and I am simply ignorant to his opinions.

But if I have this right, I tend to agree with most of this. I totally agree that the internet (and by inclusion, social media) has pornographied experience. And there is a real risk to interfacing online. The problem is that there are many dangers, and they come from all sides. There's danger of harrassment that can cause depression and despair. There's danger of manipulating the masses into warped perspectives based on falsities. There's danger of getting personally attacked, through doxxing and/or being targeted by unhinged individuals.

Censorship, in my opinion, enflames the problems rather than quenches them. Richard references the killing of George Floyd igniting the racially charged movements later that year. However, he rightly also points out the statistic of high prevalence of white people being shot as well. I bring this up because I believe there is nuance to this problem, and the truth is more complex, including issues around police overreach, the human element of power trips, training issues, and some PTSD from being frequently placed in dangerous situation with dangerous people. I'm convinced a racial element plays a factor, but I doubt it is anywhere nearly a factor to the degree that it is commonly attributed. And it certainly did not warrant the response that we got.

I bring this up because blacks are designated as a protected group, and therefore there is all sorts of censorship aimed at silencing opposing opinions. Contrary to the aim of reducing racism, the results (in my opinion) allow a platform for the crazies on the other side of the argument (the woke witch hunters) to opine unfettered. This has lead to the warped opinion which I highlighted in the previous paragraph that race is the primary issue. And instead of addressing the problems, it exacerbates them. I would argue that the country is more racially divided today than it was before George Floyd and the rise of BLM. And it is my belief that the response to George Floyd was in large part enabled by the cultural connectivity on social media.

I could say more on this, but my point is not to defend racism, but simply to point out that censorship does not reduce racism, it only tips the scales and creates instability.

I do want to bring up a couple of ins and outs from the interview. Richard brought up the Depp/Heard trial as an example of populism skewing the idea that Depp was abusive (because people love Johnny Depp). This was surprising as it went counter to the #meattwo movement. Personally, I did not find this to be the best example of bad internet culture. Not that I think Depp wasn't abusive or that Depp being abusive is a good thing. From what I gathered from the news and from watching parts of the trial, it appears that both Depp and Heard are deeply broken individuals and were mutually abusive to each other. There was little censorship with this story, and despite the Depp sycophants making Amber Heard look horrible, I think that most people took away what I took away. And Depp did not become another notch on the toxic masculinity belt, which is probably a good thing, since it's probably not the case.

Richard also brought up Musk acquiring Twitter, and attributed it to "Trump idiocy" and a false pretense that Twitter has a left-wing bias. To the first, I will only say that the Trump phenomenon is complex, and there's less idiocy in it than is attributed to it. To the second, I completely disagree with him that there is no left-wing bias. If you apply a censoring rule that lies along political lines, you will inevitably be biased towards the political group which agrees with your ideology.

To give an example, the trans-community was classified as a protected group, and then censorship actions were applied against those who spoke against them. Now for the most part, the issues surrounding trans people and the trans movement is fairly starkly divided between the right and left. To give a low resolution picture, the right considers it to be a mental disorder, and the left considers it a natural state of being. Once again, I think the answer is messy and the verdict is still out. But the point here is not whose right and whose wrong. It is simply to point out the bias in the censorship.

Final thoughts. Do I think the Republicans and Democrats are part of an omni-party in a fascistic relationship with big business? Absolutely. Do I think that trans people are a product of environmental and cultural conditions from a Mouse Utopia type situation rather than a genetic predisposition? Yeah, more or less. Do I think that Hillary Clinton is a reptilian in the skin of a human? It's easier to stomach her that way if I view her that way from time to time. Do I think the earth is actually flat? Less than 3% of the time. Should I be censored for expressing these opinions? I would hope not.

Sorry if I meandered. I will leave you with a song that relates to the subject of our discussion, and an open invitation to continue the conversation if you so desire.

Merry Christmas you filthy animal