News of News - The Fifth Power
Issa Rae, Cory Booker, and More of the Biggest Moments of TIME’s Impact Dinner: The Closers
Earlier this month, with the launch of its new list, The Closers, TIME highlighted the work of 18 influential figures working to close the Black-white racial wealth gap. On Thursday night, several of those leaders were among those who gathered in Midtown Manhattan to celebrate that work—and, at a time when the median wealth of white families in the U.S. remains stubbornly higher than that of Black families, to draw attention to how much remains to be done.
Actor and entrepreneur (and TIME Closers cover star) Issa Rae, Operation Hope founder and CEO John Hope Bryant, Senator Cory Booker, and others joined TIME’s Chief Marketing Officer Sadé Muhammad, editor in chief Sam Jacobs, and CEO Jessica Sibley in delivering remarks. “People are often curious why I have been in traditional media my entire career,” Muhammad said during her welcome remarks. “It’s because I believe so deeply in the power of media and entertainment to make everybody pay attention.”
When we talk about climate change or global warming, one important question comes up: What forces can the government organize to fight against global warming? Or we could ask, who on Earth can actually fight against global warming? Can global warming be stopped by raising taxes or by giving more power to the government? If you think the answer is ‘yes,’ then the next question is: When will we see the results? In 10 years, 20 years, or maybe only after several generations?
I bet that you or your descendants won’t be able to judge the results because we never set a clear goal. Over time, people might forget about it, even though the taxes are still there and the Earth is still getting warmer.
What is capitalism? Capitalism comes from freedom—it’s a reflection of human nature in the economy. In other words, it’s a model of human’s nature. As Adam Smith explained in his book, people act in their own self-interest when they do business, and this actually helps improve the well-being of society as a whole.
At first, global warming and capitalism might not seem connected, but they are. We’ve seen that some activists blame capitalism for causing global warming. The question is: If capitalism really caused global warming, can we solve it by getting rid of capitalism and switching to another kind of *ism?
I’ve personally heard people say, ‘But capitalism does have some problems.’ I was surprised because, when someone thinks like this, they’re expecting something that has no problems at all. The logic is pretty simple: If you don’t want something that has a few problems, then you must be hoping for something that is perfect and has no problems at all.
Let’s get back to the main question: Could another *ism solve global warming better? As the author of this article, I have to admit, we don’t know. But from history and what we’ve seen today, in some societies that follow other *isms, global warming isn’t really the problem—getting enough food to eat is. We’ve also seen activists push governments to put limits on industries like cattle farming and agriculture. But logically, and in practice, this could lead to famine. It might not happen in rich countries, but it could in poorer countries that depend on cheap food from wealthier nations. This means that when rich countries reduce industrial and agricultural production to fight global warming, poor countries may face famine first.
“Global warming could cause disasters! Let’s have famines first to stop it!” Wait, what exactly is a disaster? I thought you said you cared about poor people.
Actually, we’ve seen in other *ism societies that sometimes, people try to solve one problem by creating an even bigger one.
Once again, can we solve global warming by getting rid of capitalism and switching to another *ism? We don’t know for sure, but here’s what we do know: In a capitalist society, people compete to make better and cheaper products to win in the market. This kind of behavior is productive and helps poor people afford food and other essentials. It can delay disasters, and before the real disaster arrives, people have more time to develop science and technology to fight against it. And if people can’t defeat the disaster, well, maybe they’ll have the chance to fly to Mars instead!
Recently, a gesture made by Elon Musk during a rally has sparked widespread social debate about whether it resembled a Nazi salute. Many left-wing commentators speculated that Musk deliberately used this gesture to show support for Nazism, and CNN analyzed the incident on its program. Meanwhile, right-wing commentators refuted the suspicions and accusations made by the left.
In this article, we acknowledge the right of all individuals and media to express their views on this matter. However, we aim to provide an analysis of this incident to offer readers a different perspective on the issue. Our focus is: Using Behavioral Analysis to Identify “Bad Actors” and Its Parallels with Stasi Practices.
1. Behavioral Analysis and Freedom of Expression
It’s entirely within the rights of individuals or media to analyze or question the actions of public figures, especially when these actions are connected to sensitive historical contexts. However, such analyses should be grounded in facts and rationality, rather than preconceived biases or political agendas.
2. The Risk of Behavioral Surveillance: A Stasi Parallel
Behavioral analysis, if taken too far, can resemble the practices of the Stasi (East German secret police), who scrutinized every action and word of citizens to identify “potential threats.” Modern society faces similar risks when social media behavior and gestures are overanalyzed:
- Over-interpretation: Innocuous gestures or words may be exaggerated into intentional signals.
- Intent Assumption: Inferring someone’s intent based solely on behavior can lead to unfair accusations.
- Public Pressure: Individuals subjected to such scrutiny often find it difficult to defend themselves fairly.
3. Complexity of Symbols and History
The Nazi salute is a historically sensitive symbol tied to immense societal trauma. It’s understandable that any gesture resembling it would spark concern or outrage. However, it’s important to distinguish between deliberate mimicry and unintentional resemblance:
- Public figures like Elon Musk do bear greater responsibility to avoid ambiguous gestures.
- Without concrete evidence of intent, there’s a danger of turning scrutiny into baseless accusations.
4. Media’s Role
Media outlets like CNN have the right to analyze such controversies but also bear a responsibility to present balanced perspectives rather than inflaming division or amplifying speculation.
5. Conclusion
Using behavioral analysis to identify “bad actors” can sometimes verge on modern-day Stasi-like practices, fostering unnecessary societal tensions. Regarding Elon Musk’s gesture, the following points are crucial:
- Encourage rational, fact-based discussions over emotional or politically charged reactions.
- Avoid jumping to conclusions about intent without evidence.
- Balance the public’s right to critique with a fair and measured approach to interpretation.
In a modern society sensitive to historical trauma and symbolism, caution and fairness are essential to prevent the escalation of misunderstanding into social division.
In this article, we do not aim to support or oppose any side. Our purpose is to caution everyone: using behavioral analysis to identify “bad actors” is a Stasi-style method of social control. While every individual has the full right to evaluate and analyze, citizens’ behavior should not be subject to such scrutiny and examination. When a society begins to rely on behavioral analysis to find “bad actors,” it has already started down the path of a Stasi model. This model, commonly employed in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and other socialist states to prevent subversion, represents a form of societal governance that must be avoided at all costs.
Many people often refer to dictatorship and totalitarianism, but do they truly understand the differences between these two concepts? Let’s explain.
In both dictatorship and totalitarianism, the people don’t get to choose their leaders, and power is taken by force or control. In a dictatorship, one person or a small group holds all the power and makes decisions without letting the people have a say. Although they control the government, people might still have some freedom in their personal lives, as long as they don’t speak out against the leader.
Totalitarianism, on the other hand, takes control much further. The government doesn’t just run the country; it controls almost every part of people’s lives—where they work, what they believe, and even what they say or think. In both systems, freedom is taken away, but totalitarianism is much more extreme, trying to control everything. Neither system is good for the people because they’re forced to live under these rules without any choice.
An important difference between the two is whether the system tolerates “wrong” ideas. In a dictatorship, as long as people don’t challenge the leader, their thoughts don’t matter much. But in totalitarianism, people are forced to believe the “correct” ideas in every part of life. If you hold an incorrect idea, you are cancelled. Totalitarianism often starts with good intentions—the belief that if everyone thinks the right way, society will become perfect. But politics is not like science, where there’s always a clear right or wrong answer. It’s more like negotiation, where people’s needs differ, and the goal is to find a balance, like buyers and sellers agreeing on a price.
Another important thing to understand is that just because a leader is tough or even a bad person doesn’t mean they are—or want to be—a dictator. Similarly, just because a leader is gentle or seems like a good person doesn’t mean they will promote freedom and democracy. Throughout history, we’ve seen many leaders with good ideas and intentions accidentally lead to totalitarianism. In fact, good people with good intentions are sometimes more likely to pursue totalitarianism. They get upset when bad things happen in society and want a complete solution to stop all of it. But in trying to create a “perfect” world, they can end up taking away people’s freedoms, forcing them to think and act in certain ways to avoid bad things.
Freedom of speech depends on freedom of thought. If people aren’t allowed to think freely—even if their ideas are “wrong”—how can they speak freely? And without that, how can they be part of a democracy? Free thinking is even more important than free speech, and holding ideas that others might consider “incorrect” is a fundamental human right. These ideas should be debated, not canceled. People have the right to share their thoughts, even if others disagree, and just like in a marketplace, the value of these ideas will be decided over time.
