hence the second half of the quote, asking for what reason one might believe that their views are repressed or censored. I don't think you have to look very far to see this sort of view in action, it rallied many people to vote for Donald Trump, for example (leftist universities censoring right wing views = larger societal problem of right wing censorship). My point is that this belief seems widespread especially on social media, and it may be the case that social media has the effect of making this sort of political belief (1) profitable and (2) desirable for those who take part. Foucault talks of the speakers benefit in the history of sexuality, he says that it is desirable for one to believe that sexuality is repressed because then speaking on it is subversive and somehow "anticipates the coming freedom". This speakers benefit, when paired with the repressive hypothesis (I.e that power seeks to repress subversive views, lifestyles etc.) creates a constant cycle of speaking about things that are apparently too radical to be spoken of. Hence you can be a communist online, or a fascist, and power doesn't really care. You're just giving them more information on you, and you're trapped in a cycle of believing speech to be subversive, which generates a multiplicity of political communities online that somehow satisfy political desire enough for no one to take it offline. It also profits social media companies and makes political marketing and manipulation somewhat easier.

I'm suggesting that the thirst for subversion has been entirely absorbed within a system that cares very little about the content of the subversive beliefs , so long as the liberal value of open dialogue and discussion (this is a liberal idea AGAINST repressive, aristocratic power) continues to dominate our political imagination, we will continue to seek political desire in speaking subversively online, which does next to nothing.

for example (leftist universities censoring right wing views = larger societal problem of right wing censorship) — wanderoff

What you are talking here is about hiding and distoring information. This is not censorship. Power is not involved here. This is happening everyday (moment actually), everywhere!

Definition of "censorship" by Oxford LEXICO: "The suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

My point is that this belief seems widespread especially on social media — wanderoff

The social media are not "power". You could at least consider the actual media (broadcasting, publishing, internet), esp. TV and newspapers, which, because of their power, are called "Fourth Estate". Yet, even they don't have enough power to or even not even interested in or need to exercise actual censorship.

But then, as I remember, the issue is the use of the word "belief" ... :smile:

power is not involved ?

power is not involved ? — wanderoff

Well, if you don't see this, you must most probably use the word "power" with some other meaning. I'm speaking about "Political or social authority or control, especially that exercised by a government." (2nd definition in Oxford LEXICO). My whole description, the examples I gave, the excerpt from Wikipedia ... all referred to that "power"!

I just lost my time then! :sad:

sorry, most of this was in reference to concepts in foucault's the History of sexuality. If you've ever read foucault, his view of power is much more expansive than simple government control. Control, and power in general can be said to be exercised by any institution, the university, prison, capitalism in general, discourse, etc.

Not a waste of time, if anything it helps me to realize I'm being vague.

Power relies a lot less on controlling the "messages" as much as they are focused on controlling the medium (?). At least in the case of internet politics. — wanderoff

Right, like I have said elsewhere, the point is to get people to feel like they are rebelling, without them actually doing so. Give people outlets to vent their frustration (social media, professional sports, religion, elections, etc), which themselves are usually ineffectual for making any real lasting change.

the only qualitative difference I find is the directness with which this operates when it comes to political communities. With sports or religion it feels more easily Co opted by capitalism, because it's almost a metaphorical type of spectacle.. whereas rebellious political activity isn't sublimated through movies or TV but simply through actually 'engaging' in political activity. Moreover, I feel like it requires certain misunderstandings about the nature of power for it to work. Rebellious political speech is only felt to be rebellious if there is a certain belief in power's desire to repress it(?).

I'm suggesting that the thirst for subversion has been entirely absorbed within a system that cares very little about the content of the subversive beliefs , so long as the liberal value of open dialogue and discussion (this is a liberal idea AGAINST repressive, aristocratic power) continues to dominate our political imagination, we will continue to seek political desire in speaking subversively online, which does next to nothing. — wanderoff

Sure. My experience suggests that most 'activists', right or left are theatrical and certainly don't really want to achieve anything, they just want to whine and be seen as radicals. It was no different before the internet - I remember well. Is this intrinsic and sometimes hypocritical posturing not just human behaviour? It's no different to people who talk about the importance of higher consciousness and subverting materialism when at heart they are acquisitive consumers whose real concern are their cars, homes and swimming pools?