9 ms·

Here's how Wikipedia describes a police state: >The inhabitants of a police state may experience restrictions on their mobility, or on their freedom to express

by beeboop 11y ago

Here's how Wikipedia describes a police state: >The inhabitants of a police state may experience restrictions on their mobility, or on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state. ~100% of American communications are monitored by the government. We have secret courts that authorize the killing of American citizens. We have National Security Letters, requiring people to do exactly as they're told and not allowing them to tell anyone (in some cases even their lawyer) they've been served with one. Government agencies operate outside the bounds of the constitution on a routine and mass basis (NSA's phone spying program was found to be illegal/unconstitutional) with zero repercussions to government employees and agents who violated the law. It also defines this: >An electronic police state is one in which the government aggressively uses electronic technologies to record, organize, search, and distribute forensic evidence against its citizens America is the poster child of an electronic police state. We do it more than any other country on a scale larger than any country in history. Americans are more monitored than any large group of people in the history of the world.

PlzSnow 11y ago
The number of respected social commentators who think America is a police state is essentially zero. If you believe America is a police state, then you are on the extreme-fringes of opinion. So you'd need extraordinary evidence to back your claim up.
- beeboop 11y ago
  Social commentators employed by the same companies that give us garbage news, terrible reporting, and comically blatant bias at every opportunity. For a social commentator to speak out against the government on a major news outlet would be a ratings disaster. Most Americans either agree with the surveillance state, don't give a shit, or don't even know about it. American media outlets are tremendously political and it'd be political suicide to speak ill of those who essentially own you. I don't know how anyone can argue that the US doesn't fit the definition of an electronic police state as it was defined above. Your head would have to be very deep in the sand. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
  - johncolanduoni 11y ago
    I think he meant social commentators in academia/think tanks, not anchors at news stations. > For a social commentator to speak out against the government on a major news outlet would be a ratings disaster. What do you see them constantly doing when it comes to police brutality? And for the federal level, have you watched Fox News while we've had a Democrat president or MSNBC while we've had a Republican one? Gratuitously negative in both cases. There is certainly tons of bias at all the popular news outlets, but it's very different from the bias of state owned news agencies.
    - beeboop 11y ago
      The problem is that both sides of the political spectrum are in favor on the problems being discussed here. Very few congress members are against the NSA spy program/NSLs/secrete courts/etc. They will bash republicans for being pro-life, but they won't bash them for being pro-NSA (generally speaking). Also, even amonst the academics, the only ones that make it on air the vast majority of the time (and are placed in a positive context within the programming) are the ones conforming to what the media wants. Ask anyone who's ever been on "the list" for expert interviews on television. They call you up and say "would you be willing to go on air and defend this position?". If no, they hang up and try the next person. The opinions broadcasted on American television are as scripted as any other TV show. Through this process they create what the socially accepted norm is, and even if the majority disagree, they become the "fringe" because their opinions are not as well represented.
  - PlzSnow 11y ago
    "I don't know how anyone can argue that the US doesn't fit the definition of an electronic police state" Unfortunately the vast vast majority of people disagree with you, including basically every single social commentator. The only people agreeing with you are those on the fringe extremes. I'm sorry, but I don't think reasoned debate is possible with you.
    - beeboop 11y ago
      You're saying reasoned debate is not possible with me when I call you out on a logical fallacy and you reiterate as a trump card, thinking you've won the discussion? Yeah, have fun with your head in the sand.
- yourepowerless 11y ago
  A basic fallacy and tautology, I'm sure if I list a thinker you will simply state they aren't respected or are 'fringe'. Does the Chicago blacksite count extraordinary evidence? There is so much evidence of police illegality, wanton murder, and lack of criminal action at every level, from the bottom to to the top where our country commits torture and does nothing that it is extraordinary for anyone to not belief America is a police state. You life in an oligarchy ruled by a corrupt elite, I can even site academic evidence of such but again, you argue by tautologies so why bother? Open your eyes.
  - PlzSnow 11y ago
    "it is extraordinary for anyone to not belief America is a police state" But the vast vast majority of people disagree and think that your opinions are extremist nonsense. Where are all the conspiracy theorists coming from on HackerNews recently?
    - beeboop 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum It's like you went to a website of logical fallacies and said to yourself, "how many of these can I commit on a single HN thread?" Fly away, troll.
  - grkvlt 11y ago
    > There is so much evidence of police illegality, wanton murder, and lack of criminal action at every level, from the bottom to to the top This, and your freedom to comment about it on a public forum, is pretty much conclusive proof that America is NOT a police state. When this evidence is suppressed or anyone attempting to cite this evidence is disappeared, THEN you should start worrying.
lifeformed 11y ago
I guess the main difference is one of scale. The vast majority of citizens don't "experience restrictions on mobility or expression" in a significant way, even though it happens to some people.
- yourepowerless 11y ago
  Simply untrue. Airports. No fly lists. Mass surveillance. Free speech zones, civil forfeiture, national security letters. Millions of Americans have a security clearance, the government has created a two tier system of those inside and everyone else. Big media is tightly controlled in America, and after TPP and other international treaties the internet will also be even more tightly controlled. Civil liberties have been extensively erroded since 9-11, how can anyone besides a shill or the ignorant not know such basic facts?
  - PlzSnow 11y ago
    Unfortunately your text largely uses the rhetoric of conspiracy theorists. You even use the word "shill". I don't think reasoned debate is possible with you, because your opinions are so extreme.
    - beeboop 11y ago
      No fly lists are a conspiracy theory? You have got to be a troll.
      - johncolanduoni 11y ago
        That post listed a lot of things other than no fly lists...
    - wfo 11y ago
      The person you're responding to stated very few opinions (essentially "things will get even worse") and some well-known facts. The tone and style of rhetoric is a little heavy but there is absolutely nothing extreme about any of the statements there. An extremist would be someone who chooses to plug their ears and shout and refuse to acknowledge these simple factual statements about American society/government.
grkvlt 11y ago
> We have secret courts that authorize the killing of American citizens You say this like it's an everyday occurrence, something that happens repeatedly, many many times. But it isn't - it happened once when Anwar al-Awlaki [1] was killed in a drone strike. [ EDIT - should be "happens rarely" not just once ] As for the 'electronic police state' comment, again this is untrue. The purpose of the bulk surveillance is absolutely NOT to gather evidence against citizens. In fact, it is used agains foreigners only for national security and intelligence purposes. In absolutely exceptional circumstances it is permissible to search the collected data for records pertaining to citizens, but we see in the Snowden documents that there are legal safeguards and procedures to protect against accidental or inadvertant surveillance of citizens. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
- beeboop 11y ago
  The frequency is not really relevant. It was and is legal and faced no real opposition. >The purpose of the bulk surveillance is absolutely NOT to gather evidence against citizens. They admit themselves they gather bulk data on everything. The intent of an organization that has proven to lie through their teeth and break the law really means nothing. Intent is also pointless, the action is what matters. >In fact, it is used agains foreigners only for national security and intelligence purposes. This is simply not true. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/nsa-employee-spied-detection-internal-memo http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/nsa-employee-sp... www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/nsa-porn-muslims_n_4346128.htm www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/23/bloomberg_report_nsa_employees_have_deliberately_abused_their_power.html http://www.businessinsider.com/how-nsa-can-abuse-data-on-americans-2013-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-nsa-can-abuse-data-on-ame... https://www.rt.com/usa/nsa-domestic-surveillance-abuse-684/ https://www.rt.com/usa/nsa-domestic-surveillance-abuse-684/ There are hundreds of resources and examples showing rampant abuse and non-security related surveillance of Americans. edit: don't forget its use for corporate espionage: http://sputniknews.com/latam/20150707/1024322295.html http://sputniknews.com/latam/20150707/1024322295.html
  - grkvlt 11y ago

by beeboop 11y ago

PlzSnow 11y ago

The number of respected social commentators who think America is a police state is essentially zero. If you believe America is a police state, then you are on the extreme-fringes of opinion. So you'd need extraordinary evidence to back your claim up.

beeboop 11y ago
Social commentators employed by the same companies that give us garbage news, terrible reporting, and comically blatant bias at every opportunity. For a social commentator to speak out against the government on a major news outlet would be a ratings disaster. Most Americans either agree with the surveillance state, don't give a shit, or don't even know about it. American media outlets are tremendously political and it'd be political suicide to speak ill of those who essentially own you. I don't know how anyone can argue that the US doesn't fit the definition of an electronic police state as it was defined above. Your head would have to be very deep in the sand. Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
- johncolanduoni 11y ago
  I think he meant social commentators in academia/think tanks, not anchors at news stations. > For a social commentator to speak out against the government on a major news outlet would be a ratings disaster. What do you see them constantly doing when it comes to police brutality? And for the federal level, have you watched Fox News while we've had a Democrat president or MSNBC while we've had a Republican one? Gratuitously negative in both cases. There is certainly tons of bias at all the popular news outlets, but it's very different from the bias of state owned news agencies.
  - beeboop 11y ago
    The problem is that both sides of the political spectrum are in favor on the problems being discussed here. Very few congress members are against the NSA spy program/NSLs/secrete courts/etc. They will bash republicans for being pro-life, but they won't bash them for being pro-NSA (generally speaking). Also, even amonst the academics, the only ones that make it on air the vast majority of the time (and are placed in a positive context within the programming) are the ones conforming to what the media wants. Ask anyone who's ever been on "the list" for expert interviews on television. They call you up and say "would you be willing to go on air and defend this position?". If no, they hang up and try the next person. The opinions broadcasted on American television are as scripted as any other TV show. Through this process they create what the socially accepted norm is, and even if the majority disagree, they become the "fringe" because their opinions are not as well represented.
- PlzSnow 11y ago
  "I don't know how anyone can argue that the US doesn't fit the definition of an electronic police state" Unfortunately the vast vast majority of people disagree with you, including basically every single social commentator. The only people agreeing with you are those on the fringe extremes. I'm sorry, but I don't think reasoned debate is possible with you.
  - beeboop 11y ago
    You're saying reasoned debate is not possible with me when I call you out on a logical fallacy and you reiterate as a trump card, thinking you've won the discussion? Yeah, have fun with your head in the sand.
yourepowerless 11y ago
A basic fallacy and tautology, I'm sure if I list a thinker you will simply state they aren't respected or are 'fringe'. Does the Chicago blacksite count extraordinary evidence? There is so much evidence of police illegality, wanton murder, and lack of criminal action at every level, from the bottom to to the top where our country commits torture and does nothing that it is extraordinary for anyone to not belief America is a police state. You life in an oligarchy ruled by a corrupt elite, I can even site academic evidence of such but again, you argue by tautologies so why bother? Open your eyes.
- PlzSnow 11y ago
  "it is extraordinary for anyone to not belief America is a police state" But the vast vast majority of people disagree and think that your opinions are extremist nonsense. Where are all the conspiracy theorists coming from on HackerNews recently?
  - beeboop 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum It's like you went to a website of logical fallacies and said to yourself, "how many of these can I commit on a single HN thread?" Fly away, troll.
- grkvlt 11y ago
  > There is so much evidence of police illegality, wanton murder, and lack of criminal action at every level, from the bottom to to the top This, and your freedom to comment about it on a public forum, is pretty much conclusive proof that America is NOT a police state. When this evidence is suppressed or anyone attempting to cite this evidence is disappeared, THEN you should start worrying.

lifeformed 11y ago

I guess the main difference is one of scale. The vast majority of citizens don't "experience restrictions on mobility or expression" in a significant way, even though it happens to some people.

yourepowerless 11y ago
Simply untrue. Airports. No fly lists. Mass surveillance. Free speech zones, civil forfeiture, national security letters. Millions of Americans have a security clearance, the government has created a two tier system of those inside and everyone else. Big media is tightly controlled in America, and after TPP and other international treaties the internet will also be even more tightly controlled. Civil liberties have been extensively erroded since 9-11, how can anyone besides a shill or the ignorant not know such basic facts?
- PlzSnow 11y ago
  Unfortunately your text largely uses the rhetoric of conspiracy theorists. You even use the word "shill". I don't think reasoned debate is possible with you, because your opinions are so extreme.
  - beeboop 11y ago
    No fly lists are a conspiracy theory? You have got to be a troll.
    - johncolanduoni 11y ago
      That post listed a lot of things other than no fly lists...
  - wfo 11y ago
    The person you're responding to stated very few opinions (essentially "things will get even worse") and some well-known facts. The tone and style of rhetoric is a little heavy but there is absolutely nothing extreme about any of the statements there. An extremist would be someone who chooses to plug their ears and shout and refuse to acknowledge these simple factual statements about American society/government.

grkvlt 11y ago

> We have secret courts that authorize the killing of American citizens You say this like it's an everyday occurrence, something that happens repeatedly, many many times. But it isn't - it happened once when Anwar al-Awlaki [1] was killed in a drone strike. [ EDIT - should be "happens rarely" not just once ] As for the 'electronic police state' comment, again this is untrue. The purpose of the bulk surveillance is absolutely NOT to gather evidence against citizens. In fact, it is used agains foreigners only for national security and intelligence purposes. In absolutely exceptional circumstances it is permissible to search the collected data for records pertaining to citizens, but we see in the Snowden documents that there are legal safeguards and procedures to protect against accidental or inadvertant surveillance of citizens. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

beeboop 11y ago
The frequency is not really relevant. It was and is legal and faced no real opposition. >The purpose of the bulk surveillance is absolutely NOT to gather evidence against citizens. They admit themselves they gather bulk data on everything. The intent of an organization that has proven to lie through their teeth and break the law really means nothing. Intent is also pointless, the action is what matters. >In fact, it is used agains foreigners only for national security and intelligence purposes. This is simply not true. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/nsa-employee-spied-detection-internal-memo http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/27/nsa-employee-sp... www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/nsa-porn-muslims_n_4346128.htm www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/23/bloomberg_report_nsa_employees_have_deliberately_abused_their_power.html http://www.businessinsider.com/how-nsa-can-abuse-data-on-americans-2013-7 http://www.businessinsider.com/how-nsa-can-abuse-data-on-ame... https://www.rt.com/usa/nsa-domestic-surveillance-abuse-684/ https://www.rt.com/usa/nsa-domestic-surveillance-abuse-684/ There are hundreds of resources and examples showing rampant abuse and non-security related surveillance of Americans. edit: don't forget its use for corporate espionage: http://sputniknews.com/latam/20150707/1024322295.html http://sputniknews.com/latam/20150707/1024322295.html
- grkvlt 11y ago