Prompted by “Does the Internet Spur Social Change, Or Lazy Activism?”: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/12/25/1446245/does-the-internet-spur-social-change-or-lazy-activism
It’s been long established that people are surrounded by a “filter bubble” online, where they’re only exposed to viewpoints they already agree with. There’s also the question of whether liking something on Facebook makes you less likely to contribute to a cause in more substantive ways.
On the other hand, this type of internet activism does do what social networks are designed for: building a community. Strangers with the same views can more easily organize into groups, and groups of a certain size are heard by lawmakers, regardless of their origin. Plus, engaging in small, low-risk activism does make people more likely to engage in further activism with more impact.
Then there’s this well-expressed comment about that filter bubble…
As opposed to people consuming traditional media, who are exposed to a healthy broad range of viewpoints and in-depth analysis of The Truth. Give me a break. Personally, I find exchanging ideas and arguing with people holding opposing viewpoints to be rather educational, and that’s something that the internet offers but traditional media can’t. Online discussions have made me rethink my deeply-held beliefs, forced me to re-examine my arguments, changed my opinion on several occasions, and offered me a more nuanced view of those with opposing viewpoints, and insight into their lines of reasoning. At the very least it has made me critical of anything that is offered up as “evidence”. And that’s something that I only very rarely get in traditional media. A newspaper article can offer up bullshit statistics as “facts”, the same statistics online will be picked apart, debunked, and countered with other data in no time.
But you’re right: this is still just talking, not protesting.
This is right up Liberty Shield’s (usually virtual) ally.
Our Liberty Shield entertainment (inclusively educational) project is all about promoting the apparently innovative approach called scientific constitutionalism — an approach fully scientifically built to defend liberty and justice by evolving the certainty of language for precise law.
Here’s some relevant clips from our Liberty Shield informational roots…
Interestingly and fittingly, the revolutionary spirit forming our nation (against law abuse, as clearly expressed in the United States Declaration of Independence) already tried to start our nation down this logically lawful road, so relying upon unalienable rights and a supremely lawful Constitution reasonably carefully designed against abusive leadership by law. […]
…let us return to objectively defined law (or “oblaw” for simpler communication), starting with the essential unalienable right to liberty.
Liberty itself is a certainty when defined as the condition of being free from restriction or control. While we can (and will often) examine the vastly complex realization of that certainty towards civility, that certainty suffices as a functional part for fundamental use in oblaw.
Properties of liberty, as defined in our national Declaration of Independence, include self-evident and unalienable. Objectively speaking, self-evidence and ‘Creator given’ are effectively the same property (the right is automatically granted).
Only for the sake of this writing combined with brevity (and logically modern sensibility), controversial usage of the words “men” (as in “all men are created equal”) and “Creator” (as in “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”) in terms of historically claimed justifications for gender and religious discrimination to form the nationally (l)awfully discriminatory definition of liberty remain absent in terms of details herein — but not ignored in the overall Liberty Shield scope, where both of those discriminatory stances are boldly logically refuted.
Feel free to limit liberty strictly within your religious context, for topnotch example, but under no just circumstance can anyone lawfully leverage that context against non-believers of that religion for whom that right equally applies.
To clarify by some redundancy and a bit more depth, “We hold these truths to be self-evident” begins the most famous passage in the most famous declaration in American history. Those truths include the right to liberty, and self-evidence is a certainty suitable for oblaw. Returning to “endowed by their Creator”, we again reinforce the self-evidence property of liberty equal to naturally given, and remove any possible religious discrimination against objectivity and consequently justice (casually noting that Thomas Jefferson in the preceding paragraph therein authored “Nature’s God” instead of simply God). That famous passage eventually reaches “certain unalienable rights” (and one of those rights is obviously liberty). The word unalienable means ‘cannot be taken away’, so we have another certainty suitable for oblaw.
After assembling those oblaw parts, the irrefutable logic dictates that you can do whatever you want, while never infringing upon that right (i.e. liberty is limited only by the right itself with no possible exception). For distinction from the common usage of the term liberty, I call the liberty oblaw construct “balanced liberty” (or “blib” for simpler communication), and it literally is the most brilliant social construct ever possible, logically speaking. The reason for that boldest of claims is the fact that liberty defines what you can do with your life, and when the only limit against your liberty is the right itself, we have optimal liberty in a civilized society — nonetheless the construct is easily understood and quickly expressed by basically anyone needing to leverage rights protection — critically including the righteously powerless against an abusive oligarchy.
That leverage must be maximally reinforced by the publicly understood need for oblaw, so harm must be objectively defined to maximal extent (an objective definition perpetually refined similar to advancing technology upon new discoveries).
When harm becomes necessarily objectively defined (including never defined by mere suggestive/pseudo/junk science), and publicly accepted as necessary against the typical stigmas popularly formed by abusive reasoning to the ironic detriment of society, then even the “weakest” person can most powerfully simply refute any popularly unethically powerful leverage for persecuting law against them by simply stating no objective evidence conclusively proves harm purportedly justifying that law in their case, so that law remains unjust and therefore unlawful in any actual justice system.
That just stance needs to be understandably respectfully backed by the dominating public capable of sufficiently organizing (with awareness-raising conducted through a system of secure, completely honest, and popular information feeds) to then dominate any oligarchy continuing that persecuting path in the true highest court of the land — the court of public opinion.
You cannot ask for a better focal point (or guiding light, if you prefer) for society, and it all boils down to a compact and objectively defined legal construct (a lawful seed ready for planting to form the tree of just law) already reasonably excellently defined in our nation’s foundation as an obligation.
Had blib been consistently logically (so lawfully) realized upon establishment against pre-American conservatism…
- slavery (and judicially approved racism overall) would have necessarily ended instantly by law (and as a fitting aside, anyone believing skin color determines competency, social value, and/or such, would be righteously diagnosed as mentally ill).
- women would have been necessarily instantly granted equal rights by law (feel free to fittingly add a similar mental illness diagnosis with regards to gender superiority and remaining items in this list).
- there could never be any just law discriminating against the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) community (or discrimination on the basis of marriage against single people regardless of sexual preference — e.g. any tax law unfairly benefiting married couples).
- selectively opposing certain drug users would never have been lawfully allowed (including Alcohol Prohibition).
- there could be no just law against any form of fully adult-consensual sex (including that requiring a financial component).
- no reverse discrimination could be lawfully possible.
Blib is an objective (so just) grounding for social equality remaining strictly fit within our national constitutional context and modern sensibility, while purely subjectively defined morality (and the recklessly formed stigmas ignited by irrationality for widespread harm) to the contrary be justly — so morally for everyone, not ironically immorally for some dominating group therein — condemned.
Stepping outside of those informational roots, Liberty Shield is meticulously built and refined to better understand and (sometimes politically) leverage the undeniable power of objectivity in language (e.g. fairness requires objectivity, and justice requires fairness, so a justice system requires objectively defined law).
Even if it’s just limited to promoting the critical nature of updating the English language to place a hard-line distinction between use and abuse (use is a harmless act, and abuse is a harmful act), and then objectively define harm — i.e. best objectively define harm, because reality has only been scientifically affirmed as purely energetic, so harm is inevitably subjective (how can anyone harm energy?) — then that alone forms powerful leverage to put a firm stop to the continuously raging political warfare spanning all of society.
That warfare is the most dominant enemy against civility and liberty, but how many “filter bubbles” agree with that logical conclusion?
Find me one other reasonable alternative to scientific constitutionalism. I don’t want to waste my time, so if you have something powerful to say on the matter against Liberty Shield legitimacy, then let if respectably fly in the comments herein.
If you cannot, then feel at civilized and balanced liberty to participate (tiniest through grandest) in the Liberty Shield movement as a scientific constitutionalist.
We need your loving support to secure the success of us all.