We live in an open society (in the West). The term is extensively used by George Soros. In the 20th century, the concept was popularized by Karl Popper, and originally coined by Henri Bergson. I cannot give an exact definition of open society, sort of "you know it when you see it". I roughly define it as hyper-liberal society. It is a society that supposedly gives 100% freedom of choice and acceptance to everyone.

This looks great in theory. However, in practice it ends up being the exact opposite of what it claims to be. There is nothing as totalitarian as an open society. Several examples: people who go against liberal dogmas get cancelled. Those who question liberal assumptions (many of which are wrong to put it mildly) get labelled as naz1s / supremacist right-wingers. Those who do not want to take vitamins against fashionable diseases immediately become anti-xers. If someone wants to question the 'science' (Al Gore's documentary is a 100% scam) behind global warming, they are both cancelled, and insulted as a 'climate change denier' (buy 1, get 1 free deal). These examples I just listed are actually very mild, others would get my question cancelled, which I don't want to happen, so I will just stay away from those.

My question is this: why does open society always result in pure totalitarianism?

  • 3
    If you live in a "liberal" society, you can freely travel and go abroad (this is one aspect of "liberty"): thus, why not migrate to a less "totalitarian" society, like e.g. Russia or Iran or...? Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 13:53
  • 5
    Voted close as there is no question, but just a rant. Also there's no definition of an open society, a closed society or whatever the opposite of an open society is so how is anyone supposed to answer that? And even if we consider the west a closed society that hold something as truth, how is the fact that you're able to say these things more totalitarian than systems were you're imprisoned or murdered for dissent? Also the obvious: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
    – haxor789
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 14:04
  • 2
    yeah, taking vitamins during the scamdemic was extremely important, no one could fly to a totalitarian country or even keep their job without those Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 14:36
  • 3
    @KristianBerry An accusation of dog whistling is a strategy to deter people from considering perspectives the accuser considers personally threatening. It also assumes bad faith. Above all, it is neither helpful nor constructive. It is more constructive to address the topic in some way rather than attack imagined motivations. Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 1:32
  • 4
    @JustSomeOldMan: without disputing your comment entirely, sometimes a dog whistle is just exactly a dog whistle. It's a good idea to address a topic when there is one, but all too frequently people ask questions which are nothing more than noise intended to incite aggravated responses. Only fools take trolling seriously. Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 1:52

6 Answers 6


Although I don't normally suggest people read Wikipedia, its Open Society is worth reviewing. In effect, 'openness' in an open society is a position of moral universalism, where a society actively accepts difference and applies uniform rules and standards across all members of the population. Societies can be 'closed' in a number of ways:

  • Ethno-cultural closure, where only people of certain races or heritages are accepted as full members of society (tribalism, ethno-nationalism)
  • Economic closure, where distinct economic classes receive differential acceptance and freedoms (slave-based societies, oligarchies, aristocracies, class capitalism)
  • Political closure, where power and privilege is vested solely in one immutable party, person, or group (kingdoms, autocracies, juntas)
  • Religious closure, where the rules and strictures of a particular religion are applied to everyone, regardless of their faith or beliefs (theocracies, religious nationalism)

An open society is not an idealized anarchic or Libertarian system of complete freedom. Rules and laws exist within open societies, but they are universal rules and laws, not differential rules and laws that advantage some and disadvantage others.

That being said, open societies as a rule have two consistent problems. The first problem is that many people within an open society would prefer a closed society; many people, in fact, confuse the simple homogeneity of a closed society with the moral universalism of an open society. After all — if I may be brutally frank — the easiest way to ensure that laws and rules of society are applied universally is to eliminate population differences, so that everyone who counts in society is more or less the same as everyone else who counts. Homogenous societies are comparatively easy to administer, because everyone shares the same worldview. This leads to strife in open societies, where those who desire a closed society — who are often oblivious to the closed nature of the society they seek — try to impose their own rules and laws on people who do not share their worldview.

The second problem is the 'free rider' issue: people who want the benefits of an open society, but do not wish to pay the costs or assume the responsibilities of an open society. They use the universality of open society against itself, gaining advantages for themselves or their group by foisting the costs and burdens onto others. This inevitably leads to a 'tragedy of the commons' scenario, where society begins to collapse under the weight of this innocuous-seeming moral corruption.

People who want a closed society will always accuse open societies of being totalitarian, because an open society insists that difference be accepted and treated equally. People who want a closed society don't see difference as mere difference; in their view, difference is a crime against (closed) society. Anyone who advocates for the acceptance of difference is (to them) a traitor, or a tyrant, or a monster.

People who want to be free riders will also accuse open societies of being totalitarian, because an open society will insist that free riders pay their dues to society and accept the responsibilities of being part of society. Free riders don't care whether their behaviors are harmful to others, or to the world at large; they have no interest in the 'common good'. They see anyone trying to appeal to the 'common good' as a tyrant.

It's easy to call someone a tyrant when they get in the way of what one wants. It's hard to recognize that what one wants is not always consistent with the common good. It's impossible for some people to recognize that a 'common good' even exists because they are so tightly wrapped in their own self-interest, and such people will happily spread pollution, disease, and misery in their wake, like a modern-day Typhoid Mary. What's an open society to do, except try to rein in those who refuse to rein in themselves?

  • 1
    Agree, but the problem with trying to make a uniform group of people is that inevitably, smaller and smaller differences become visible, and people are either cast out, or the entire group splits. Years back I found 47 different sects of Protestantism in the phone book for my small city. This after the original religion was called 'Universal' (Catholic). Any scheme to homogenise a group is doomed to fail. It always curdles.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 10:58
  • 1
    The way I read this article, it's less about politically closed systems (restriction of membership and privileges) but epistemically closed systems. So totalitarianism, religions and other systems that provide rigid and dogmatic ideas of how things work. While an open society is in the process of negotiating them and ideally keeping aware that these are volatile assumptions rather than truths. This can tap into moral universalism, like to avoid dogma and authoritarianism this can mandate a level of equality which results in moral universalism, but I'd say to reduce it to that misses the point
    – haxor789
    Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 11:08
  • 1
    @ScottRowe: Don't underestimate group psychology, particularly the power/loyalty cathexis. Yes, there's a fragmentation pressure between different sects. but people who think they can secure power by showing loyalty to superiors will set aside many differences, at least in the short term. Often you'll see disparate groups band together merely to gain power, and struggle for dominance only after that power is secured. Commented Jun 22, 2023 at 4:50
  • I suppose. Usually the groups band together to oppose some other group. As soon as the objective occurs, they fragment again. Someone I used to know would turn off the TV after the news, saying, "People are no damn good!" I think Kant would agree with him.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Jun 22, 2023 at 10:38

You are setting out to discuss really important issues. But you do so from a radical, polarized position (as in "in practice it ends up being the exact opposite of what it claims to be"), so there is no basis for discussion here. Freedom is much more complicated than you recognize.

What discussion needs is a complex and difficult question. One thing it needs is a space for all sides to express their views and be understood. That means on your side as well as on the side of those you disagree with. Your question adopts a fixed position on the question and so does not allow that.

It needs also a space for agreement to disagree (sometimes known as tolerance). I don't see anything like that here.

I think you will just get people expressing their disagreement, and no real answer to your question.

  • 1
    Although I agree with the premise of his question; I also agree that it could have been presented more philosophically. Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 16:33
  • 1
    Of course there are philosophical issues here. Much of the response is what I expected, but I'm impressed by the reasonable approach. The community seems to be interpreting the question more charitably than I do. The fundamental issue is quasi-philosophical - how to discuss an issue with someone who doesn't respect the requirements of discussion.
    – Ludwig V
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 16:38
  • 1
    True. Most of the time, one can just ignore them or go away. But not always, specially if they won't go away. What depresses me is that it ends up in a power struggle, which it seems to me, is more likely to harm both sides than do either side any good. Whatever happens, it's the end of philosophy.
    – Ludwig V
    Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 11:39
  • 1
    "When love is gone, there's always justice. And when justice is gone, there's always force. And when force is gone, there's always mom. Hi mom!" - Laurie Anderson - O Superman
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 14:06
  • 1
    @Rusi There certainly is. Human society cannot function without trust and trust cannot survive without a certain times when the objective truth is arrived at. I'm sure there is objective truth. I just wish there was a way to plonk it on the table (or display it to the cameras) so that it became inescapable.
    – Ludwig V
    Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 14:14

They don't. You are misusing the term 'pure totalitarianism'. Your question could be re-phrased to ask why liberal societies tend to be intolerant of people with certain views. I consider it to be quite natural that liberal societies would tend to be intolerant of movements that threaten liberalism. For example, proponents of extreme left or right wing ideologies are hardly likely to be feted by a liberal society. As for cancel culture, that is quite a different matter altogether- a form of mob rule facilitated by social media.

  • I agree that there's an element of mob rule. But not all these cancellations are mob rule, but the actions of individuals or groups, who (IMO) cannot be compelled to listen to someone they do not want to listen to. They may be unreasonable in your opinion, but they are entitled to their view. See J. S. Mill "On Liberty" He doesn't think that public "disapprobation" is necessarily a bad thing, though he doesn't seem to have envisaged exactly our cancellation culture.
    – Ludwig V
    Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 7:17
  • @LudwigV I agree entirely that people are entitled to their unreasonable views. I suppose the challenge is how to encourage people to be reasonable. Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 13:14
  • 1
    I think the challenge these days is more urgent than that. Encouraging them can go on forever. There's a need to contain the harm they can do without appearing to be totalitarian.
    – Ludwig V
    Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 14:10
  • @LudwigV I agree wholeheartedly! Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 14:38
  • I don't think people are entitled to unreasonable views. We live together and have to get along. Incorrect information wastes resources and gets people killed. No one has that luxury.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Jun 23, 2023 at 1:49

A Frame issue

When I was child, my mum was trying to explain the world to me and she said, "There are two Germany-s; the German democratic republic and the Federal republic of Germany. Of these the western, federal republic is the democratic one and the eastern one is the undemocratic one" I said, "Obviously you're mixing it up; the German democratic republic must be the democratic one." She shook her head and to her credit said nothing cynical about the ways of the world but insisted that the 'wrong' order was the 'right' order.

And I wondered at the crazy world of adults.

Some decades later when I joined the university I was exposed to the idea that there were the sciences-unquestioned like physics, chemistry, and there were also a lot of other departments social science, health science and so on. Once again there seemed this strange negative correlation, the fields whose scientific status was unquestioned did not call themselves as science but where there was a question mark there the word 'science' would much more likely be in the name.

So you may ask: "If the society is called open (especially in a self naming) is it really open?"

[Here is a popular comedian questioning whether 'Great Britain' can legitimately refer to itself as 'great']

More to the point of the question

Ive expressed here in the comments and elsewhere that western society is essentially Christian society. And the more it becomes secular/liberal/democratic...choose all the positive adjectives the more inexorably Christian it gets.

Here is Richard Dawkins giving some mappings:

  • the guilt that all white people are required to feel for the slavery etc of their ancestors mapped to the Original Sin of Adam that applies to all humans
  • wine and bread becoming body and blood of Christ by mere declaration mapped to people who discard objective reality and declare themselves man/woman.

And here is a Jewish Rabbi calling Richard Dawkins a christian atheist.

His meaning is quite clear — Dawkins can claim to be an atheist and therefore un-christian in his beliefs but to the Rabbi Dawkins is hopelessly Christian in the attitude with which he reads the Bible.

We could continue in this vein — Tom Holland's magnum opus Dominion spells this out in great detail.

For here I will only say this much: When you take Christianity qua Christianity you get the dual pairing — the damnation, the wrath of God and all that stern OT stuff paired with love, forgiveness, judge-not, the softer kinder NT side.

When one secularizes Christianity one keeps all the OT part but loses all the second NT part — condemnation and damnation without redemption and love.

[Note as we speak Trumpophobia is asymptotically inching towards Salem witch hunts]

  • It seems like you meant to put a link in but didn't..? Who is the comedian? Stewart Lee makes some excellent points about immigration here: youtu.be/1cgeXd5kRDg
    – CriglCragl
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 15:31
  • 1
    @CriglCragl Trevor Noah -- link added
    – Rushi
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 15:34
  • @CriglCragl I clicked your link and got This video is blocked in your country. Seemed particularly apt to this Q/A 😈
    – Rushi
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 17:03
  • 1
    Not really.. It just means it was aired in a BBC show. Obviously can VPN to it. It was famous enough to get sampled for a song: youtu.be/_kkOHtniTts I generally like Trevor Noah, but Great in Great Britain means 'main landmass + islands'. CGP Grey goes into entertaining detail about the different terms for Blighty here: youtu.be/rNu8XDBSn10 It was a convoluted business, even before the Empire. My personal favourite remains Perfidious Albion.
    – CriglCragl
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 18:17
  • Humans will be humans, no matter what labels they try to stick on the outside. The packaging doesn't matter, the ingredients do. And, it's all the same ingredients.
    – Scott Rowe
    Commented Jun 21, 2023 at 10:50

The word "totalitarianism" has a few interrelated meanings, but so it tends to be used to identify regimes that kill large numbers or at least percentages of people in line with the themes that Hannah Arendt went over in The Origins of Totalitarianism (Harvest[73?]):

The introduction of the notion of "objective enemy" is much more decisive for the functioning of totalitarian regimes than the ideological definition of the respective categories. If it were only a matter of hating Jews or bourgeois, the totalitarian regimes could, after the commission of one gigantic crime, return, as it were, to the rules of normal life and government. As we know, the opposite is the case. The category of objective enemies outlives the first ideologically determined foes of the movement; new objective enemies are discovered according to changing circumstances [424] ... Totalitarian politics which proceeded to follow the recipes of ideologies has unmasked the true nature of these movements insofar as it clearly showed that there could be no end to this process. If it is the law of nature to eliminate everything that is harmful and unfit to live, it would mean the end of nature itself if new categories of the harmful and unfit-to-live could not be found; if it is the law of history that in a class struggle certain classes "wither away," it would mean the end of human history itself if rudimentary new classes did not form, so that they in turn could "wither away" under the hands of totalitarian rulers. In other words, the law of killing by which totalitarian movements seize and exercise power would remain a law of the movement even if they ever succeeded in making all of humanity subject to their rule. [464]

In a perfect totalitarian government, where all men have become One Man, where all action aims at the acceleration of the movement of nature or history, where every single act is the execution of a death sentence which Nature or History has already pronounced, that is, under conditions where terror can be completely relied upon to keep the movement in constant motion, no principle of action separate from its essence would be needed at all. [467]

C.f. her "Reflections on the Hungarian Revolution," fn. 5:

The best proof of the difference between Mao's and Stalin's rule may be found in a comparison of the population censuses in China and Russia. The last Chinese census, counting close to 600 million people, was higher than statistical expectations, while Russian censuses for decades have been considerably lower than what statistically was expected. In the absence of reliable figures for population losses through extermination, one could guess the figure of those who were murdered in Russia from these millions of people who were "statistically lost."

Now for example, then, the Khmer Rouge don't entirely fit Arendt's definition (they did not have a take-over-the-world goal), but once some of her parameters are slightly relaxed (they did make a "let's take over all of Vietnam" wish), it makes sense to say that they were totalitarian both in theory and in practice.

Another fairly precise standard (at least sometimes) comes from R. J. Rummel. Some of his statistics turned out to be fanciful (to put it mildly). For example, I ran his numbers for Yugoslavia one time and found he'd made a serious error in demographic/birth-rate calculations to get the projected population deficit that he used to support his incredible claim that millions of people were possibly killed by the Nazis, Ustashi, partisans, Chetniks, and Tito's victorious regime. Still, he has a more or less reasonable standard of totalitarianism, not quite as sharp as Arendt's; but so neither his, nor her, standard, would count most (if any) open societies as totalitarian.

One interesting and, as it happens, plausible accusation of totalitarianism as inflicted by an otherwise open society, upon some people, is this accusation against the US military occupation of Vietnam. Per Arendt, we'd need to show that the US military had a concentrated negative impact on Vietnam's population, for the claim to fully go through. So technically, since that can't really be shown, the US ecocide in Vietnam can't be described with full accuracy as totalitarian, as such. Or, if the description might be accurate, it would probably only be with respect to the years 1967-1969, when the US military probably killed a million South Vietnam civilians (besides the hundreds of thousands killed in earlier and later years). I mean, one government official did claim, at one point, that they were "essentially fighting Vietnam's birth rate," but again, except for those three years in particular, I'd be hard pressed to agree that they actually put a major dent in the birth rate. Now keep in mind, in 1965/1966 the US government sponsored the Indonesian government's execution of a million of its own people, and in 1971 assisted Pakistan's genocide in Bangladesh, while desolating Cambodia and Laos besides, so all told, the US record at the time has a certain totalitarian flare to it; still, this was more towards foreigners, not domestically.

It's kind of silly to say that modern repression/oppression in the US, whoever the victims are and whatever the scale, indicates that the US is now slipping into a new totalitarianism. We could easily argue that when the country was founded, the institution of slavery, the restrictions on eligible voters, and the Generalplan-Ost kind of behavior of the republic towards its Native American neighbors, seem dominating in the intended sense. Or prescriptions of the death penalty here and there for same-sex behavior (or really, any penalties in that connection), the century-long genocide of other Native Americans, etc. might come across as totalitarian after a fashion, too.

Or consider France in the aftermath of the Second World War. There were a lot of executions, and not just of collaborators, at the end of that war, followed by two murderous wars of attempted recolonization (of Vietnam first, then Algeria). This after France had already overseen the decimation of African populations in connection with its initial invasion of Algeria, and in other areas later on (astonishingly, one French reporter, André Gide, attributed a population loss of 13,000,000 to a broad region under French control). And France would later prove relatively complicit in the Rwandan genocide of 1994.

And so on and on: yet so none of this was because of America, or France, or whoever, being democratic/open, but was in spite of such tendencies.

Now, in the US, if there's any genuine and powerful totalitarian movement afoot, it's the conspiracy-theory cult that formed in connection with the former president. Their intellectual progenitor, Cornelius van Til, directly stated that the ideology at play is totalitarian:

Now it is of course true that many of the sciences do not, like theology proper, concern themselves directly with the question of religion. Granting this it remains a matter of great significance that ultimately all the facts of the universe are either what they are because of their relation to the system of truth set forth in Scripture or they are not. In every discussion about every fact, therefore, it is the two principles, that of the believer in Scripture and that of the non-Christian, that stand over against one another. Both principles are totalitarian [emphasis added]. Both claim all the facts. And it is in the light of this point that the relation of the Bible as the infallible word of God and the "facts" of science and history must finally be understood.

Two of the intellectual spearheads of Christian Reconstructionism, from whose cultural milieu the American conspiracy cult emerged, credited (in one of their books' dedications) van Til with the ideological inspiration for their own movement, and it is easy to see that the "Storm" prophesied by that cult, in terms of the cult's digital "prophet" with all his facile invocations of Christian motifs, is a postmillennial fantasy. And even had van Til not known exactly what he himself was implying by his above-quoted words, yet everything from his doctrine of "all men are one man in Adam" to "the regenerate have the sensus deitatis" to his disturbing references to burning people alive or using nuclear weapons on them, reflect the peculiarities that Arendt identified as the subtle hallmarks of totalitarian reasoning.

And so we see that with the conspiracy cult:

The lies of the movements, on the other hand, arc much subtler. They attach themselves to every aspect of social and political life that is hidden from the public eye. They succeed best where the official authorities have surrounded themselves with an atmosphere of secrecy. In the eyes of the masses, they then acquire the reputation of superior "realism" because they touch upon real conditions whose existence is being hidden. Revelations of scandals in high society, of corruption of politicians, everything that belongs to yellow journalism, becomes in their hands a weapon of more than sensational importance. [353/354]

Or the cult, as a totalitarian movement, is said to know things miraculously and hence without real evidence:

While the totalitarian regimes are thus resolutely and cynically emptying the world of the only thing that makes sense to the utilitarian expectations of common sense, they impose upon it at the same time a kind of supersense which the ideologies actually always meant when they pretended to have found the key to history or the solution to the riddles of the universe. Over and above the senselessness of totalitarian society is enthroned the ridiculous supersense of its ideological superstition.

There is an obvious reason that the cult had to form around the president that it did, because Arendtian totalitarianism doesn't work without the appropriate kind of figurehead in place, an individual to whom the movement can transfer all other individual responsibility, a "strong man" with whose will the masses can "identify," and this one man was, after all, ever so willing himself to do such a thing. The staggeringly selfless devotion of many of his followers, to this day, their continued proclamation of his divinity, is such a crystal-clear incarnation of that functional slot in the totalitarian movement as Arendt understood the matter, that if we really were to claim now that America faces the emergence of a totalitarian system in its own borders, it will be for the sake of that man and his cult.

Perhaps the danger of free societies collapsing in on themselves is in the end nothing more than the paradox of tolerance (or a generalization over Gödel's mysterious loophole). Perhaps real totalitarianism isn't quite possible in our modern world (Arendt herself thought we might very well face very new forms of political darkness, after all). At any rate, fighting pandemics and being kind to gender/sexual minorities, and other such things, are not totalitarian, and will not, by themselves, lead to this.


Your question deserves a reasonable response, so I won't vote to close.

Your question is a bit of a screed, however, it's important to respond to what is a misconception. An open society is not a society free of consequence. Just like there are limits to the specific freedom of speech, there are limits to freedoms in an open society, AND because its open, you are likely to meet resistance if you are in a tiny minority (which your position certainly is). You will encounter to some extent what some term tyranny of the majority. As already noted, this leads to a paradox of tolerance. Thus, in an open society, you might hear people advocate punching Nazi's in the face.

  • You are free to question openness and be intolerant of tolerance in an open society, but there is a limit. You cannot impose your anti-pluralism and intolerance on others.
  • You can declare yourself a scientist, and then claim that global warming is a hoax, the conservation of momentum doesn't apply, and that evolution is "junk science". But that doesn't actually mean that global warming is a hoax (it's pretty well vetted), physics is fundamentally flawed, and evolution is actually bad science. (It's one of the strongest scientific theories in the history of modern science.)
  • You can opposed vaccines, soap, and germ theory, but that doesn't mean you can't carry communicable diseases, that prayer disinfects hospital equipment, or that you'll be able to resuscitate miasma theory. The lines between science and pseudoscience are pretty well drawn, despite fringe beliefs otherwise.
  • You can run around and claim taxation is theft, and even lead a Whiskey Rebellion, but taxation is legal and in the broad sense desirable since life without some form of government quickly spirals into violent anarchy as the Hobbesian trap elicits people's worst impulses.

Now, to call an open society totalitarian is a clear-cut case of false equivalence. Living in Copenhagen, Denmark or Texas, USA is not like living in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, under Pol Pot or Mao Zedung. There are criteria to apply the term totalitarianism:

Totalitarianism is a form of government and a political system that prohibits all opposition parties, outlaws individual and group opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high if not complete degree of control and regulation over public and private life. It is regarded as the most extreme and complete form of authoritarianism. In totalitarian states, political power is often held by autocrats, such as dictators (totalitarian dictatorship) and absolute monarchs, who employ all-encompassing campaigns in which propaganda is broadcast by state-controlled mass media in order to control the citizenry.

An open society meets none of these criteria. Political pluralism is the norm, opposition to the government runs rampant, in the US, there is a Bill of Rights that protects individual freedoms, elections are (still) the norm and insurrections are resisted by the citizenry, and public broadcast is a harmless entity compared to vast private, corporate media outlets. (Show me someone who believes the BBC is a tool of oppression, and I'll show you a fool.)

Is there inequity and iniquity in an open society? Sure. Too many to list. Noam Chomsky and his Manufacturing Consent dissents against the notion that the US is a beacon upon a hill, for example. You'll find no shortage of examples of where even highly fair and democratic societies fall short. But, to conflate totalitarian regimes with flawed democracies is at best poor reasoning, and at worst an attack on others' freedoms. An open society does not mean anything goes.

  • 2
    People who feel the way this poster does managed to elect the previous president and gave him around 70 million votes to get re-elected. Whatever else you call those people, they are not a tiny minority. Also, getting fired, getting investigated by the FBI, having your speech shut down by a mob--this is not just "meeting resistance", especially when the people doing those things are part of a coalition controlling most of the major institutions in the country. Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 16:40
  • 2
    @DavidGudeman I'm not interested in the way people feel. People are for the most part emotionally stunted chimpanzees who cling nervously to irrational thinking instead of confronting and accepting truths. Trump was not elected by a majority, and the majority of people who voted for him didn't like his performance, which is why he lost reelection to cardboard cutout. I don't like cancel culture any more than you do, and I'll be the first to line up to point out that there are fundamental inequities, particularly the redistribution of wealth to the top. Kurds are oppressed. Whiny wingnuts not.
    – J D
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 17:13
  • 2
    @DavidGudeman If google terminates employees unfairly, then employees have recourse with the law. If the law is unfair, that support labor unions and protect worker rights. The FBI should be monitored for abuses, but hitting police officers in the head with extinguishers and trying to hang Speakers of the House and Vice Presidents is a crime. As for the progression from a theocracy to liberal democracy where there is a freedom of and from religion, I have no complaints.
    – J D
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 17:18
  • 2
    "the majority of people who voted for him didn't like his performance" You are badly mistaken on that. Enthusiasm for Trump was much higher for his re-election than for his first election. People who voted for him reluctantly the first time voted for him enthusiastically the second time. His total number of votes increased from 62 million to 74 million. Whatever news source told you that is deceiving you. Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 17:29
  • 2
    Also, I'm not talking about individuals being treated unfairly, I'm talking about all of the major institutions: education, mass media, social media, corporations, and government being weaponized against people who won't go along with the political opinions of the elite. Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 17:30

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .