Surveillance
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-06-2013, 11:10 PM
RE: Surveillance
(12-06-2013 11:00 PM)JAH Wrote:  Normally I am a proponent of thread drift. Here I think it should be avoided. What difference does it make what our socio/economic ideal would be. We have a state that is stomping on our toes in multiple ways.

It is important for others than the fringe to be concerned about the spying on the american public, but the public seems to think "so what". It is almost scary. I am seriously looking at the idea of arming myself with more than a baseball bat. I do not particularly like that idea.

The unconcern of the american public troubles me greatly. With no ready answer on my part.

Me and bbeljefe had a debate within a debate on what a dictatorship is (in a different thread). I stated and still maintain that a modern dictatorship is more affective because it doesn't use force, it instead uses much more affective propaganda and basically gets the people to believe that their support for the dictatorship is a result of a choice. Dictatorships that use and rely on physical force are outdated and less affective now days. Look at what the U.S. has been able to do without using force on americans.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 11:14 PM
RE: Surveillance
(12-06-2013 11:00 PM)JAH Wrote:  Normally I am a proponent of thread drift. Here I think it should be avoided. What difference does it make what our socio/economic ideal would be. We have a state that is stomping on our toes in multiple ways.

It is important for others than the fringe to be concerned about the spying on the american public, but the public seems to think "so what". It is almost scary. I am seriously looking at the idea of arming myself with more than a baseball bat. I do not particularly like that idea.

The unconcern of the american public troubles me greatly. With no ready answer on my part.



How is the indoctrinated public supposed to see the truth if not shown it by those of us on "the fringe"?

Francis Bacon was on the fringe. Yes

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-06-2013, 11:23 PM
RE: Surveillance
(12-06-2013 11:10 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 11:00 PM)JAH Wrote:  Normally I am a proponent of thread drift. Here I think it should be avoided. What difference does it make what our socio/economic ideal would be. We have a state that is stomping on our toes in multiple ways.

It is important for others than the fringe to be concerned about the spying on the american public, but the public seems to think "so what". It is almost scary. I am seriously looking at the idea of arming myself with more than a baseball bat. I do not particularly like that idea.

The unconcern of the american public troubles me greatly. With no ready answer on my part.

Me and bbeljefe had a debate within a debate on what a dictatorship is (in a different thread). I stated and still maintain that a modern dictatorship is more affective because it doesn't use force, it instead uses much more affective propaganda and basically gets the people to believe that their support for the dictatorship is a result of a choice. Dictatorships that use and rely on physical force are outdated and less affective now days. Look at what the U.S. has been able to do without using force on americans.

Dictatorships are nation states. Nation states, by definition, use violence. That some of them get by with only threats of violence more often than others does not change their violent nature.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 12:16 AM
RE: Surveillance
(12-06-2013 11:23 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 11:10 PM)I and I Wrote:  Me and bbeljefe had a debate within a debate on what a dictatorship is (in a different thread). I stated and still maintain that a modern dictatorship is more affective because it doesn't use force, it instead uses much more affective propaganda and basically gets the people to believe that their support for the dictatorship is a result of a choice. Dictatorships that use and rely on physical force are outdated and less affective now days. Look at what the U.S. has been able to do without using force on americans.

Dictatorships are nation states. Nation states, by definition, use violence. That some of them get by with only threats of violence more often than others does not change their violent nature.

But in modern society a consensus among the people is considered more affective than just using force. If one can convince people to not only accept but want more surveillance than obviously violence is not needed, that doesn't make it less totalitarian.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 12:35 AM
RE: Surveillance
(13-06-2013 12:16 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(12-06-2013 11:23 PM)bbeljefe Wrote:  Dictatorships are nation states. Nation states, by definition, use violence. That some of them get by with only threats of violence more often than others does not change their violent nature.

But in modern society a consensus among the people is considered more affective than just using force. If one can convince people to not only accept but want more surveillance than obviously violence is not needed, that doesn't make it less totalitarian.

Again... That some of them get by with only threats of violence more often than others does not change their violent nature.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 03:56 PM
RE: Surveillance
Trying to get back on track I have a curiosity question.

Just got a robo call from someone representing the "fraternal order of the police" I did not hear which one because I started saying I do not do this kind of stuff over the phone. I did hear that it would be recorded for quality control. Now if I had allowed my emotions to respond it would have been something like "I hate the fucking police".

Would it be probable or only possible that I would have got a visit from my friendly representative of "to protect and serve" later today or tomorrow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-06-2013, 05:31 PM
RE: Surveillance
(11-06-2013 06:30 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Girly ain't no Constitutional law expert, but it ain't all that clear to me. Collecting and permanently preserving metadata already collected and temporarily preserved by corporate entities, while facilitating and enabling "unreasonable search", don't seem to violate the "unreasonable search" clause until it is actually used to unreasonably search.

Okay, now it's starting to smell rotten. Apparently the Senate Intelligence Committee feels that the FISA courts are only required to collect content but searching the metadata willy-nilly on a fishing expedition is fair game. No

Intelligence Committee Chair: Court Order Not Needed To Search Metadata

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: