5 ms·

How can you even promote that? Even taken at face value...on the one hand, you have illegal violence carried out by non-state actors. On the other hand legal vi

How can you even promote that? Even taken at face value...on the one hand, you have illegal violence carried out by non-state actors. On the other hand legal violence carried out by the state. Unless I totally misunderstood you, you are saying being subject to illegal violence carried out by non-state actors is better than police violence? No. Way. Societies worldwide would also disagree with you. The State has a monopoly on violence. And this form of social organization is the majority in the world today, not your "terrorism is better" alternative. Deal with it.

im3w1l 9y ago
I think we should try to stop terrorism, but not "at any cost". Using AI model's to monitor all 1-1 conversations in the world is too dangerous of a power - it increases the risk for tyrany much more than it decreases the risk of terrorism.
- 19eightyfour 9y ago
  I haven't thought much about this....But my first reaction is -- can we at least test it to see what happens? I have something that might not be that relevant. Consider China's control of conversations on Weibo as a microcosm of "all 1-1 conversations". Assume they are using some sort of AI there ( there's a good argument for any sufficiently large bureaucracy being AI-like ). Is it really so bad? They've tracked huge GDP growth for 70 years and very low civil conflict, and much harmony, I think, from some points of view, definitely.
cbanek 9y ago
I don't know if the comment was comparing state sanctioned violence vs non-state sanctioned violence, but a quote comes to mind: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Basically, if we wanted to eliminate terrorism, we would have severely curtail freedom. And there aren't nearly as many terrorists as people think. More people die from car crashes, drug overdoses, etc. But changes in the law, the way police and law enforcement do things, could cause a loss of the liberties and freedoms we currently enjoy.
- 19eightyfour 9y ago
  Oh, so you're saying the speaker was saying " some terrorism as opposed to the curtailing of freedoms that would come from eliminating" [1] is preferable ? I completely took it to mean: "I would prefer to live in the Islamic State, than in the USA with mass surveillance." Okay, well I'm undecided as to whether [1] would be preferable or not in the way it's phrased. What I have thought about tho is: - Yes we could eliminate terrorism, and it would take a lot of extreme measures ( that the West would be unlikely to get away with ) - But why should we eliminate terrorism, since from a purely political standpoint, it is quite useful. From any sufficiently emotive or divisive issue political motivation and utility can be extracted. For instance, the fear of terrorism helps the State advance legislation that it probably would not be talking about if we did not have terrorism. So the funny paradox I see is that, at this stage of human development, our States can actually benefit from using the spectre of terrorism to develop and advance themselves. Please take this in no way to mean justifying terrorism in any way...just to say that, IMHO, real politik dictates that terrorism has political benefits for the very State it is supposed to politically disadvantage.
  - cbanek 9y ago
    The obvious point is that terrorism isn't something that can be eliminated. It's just like violence. The only difference between terrorism and violence is honestly a political message. If you want to say that the state can get away with things it couldn't before because of a war on something it can't win, I'm with you. The "war on drugs" is about as useful as waiting for Godot. But make no mistake, nobody thinks its about drugs. But overall, you seem to be taking these arguments to extremes that weren't really needed, and I'm not sure why. Nobody said anything about living in the Islamic State, and anyone who would take it that way I think has some serious thinking to do about their perspective.
xiaoma 9y ago
Police states are pretty bad, too. Consider this: Would you rather live in a European country where terrorist attacks happen on a semi-regular basis and are in the news, or would you prefer North Korea where the state is very strong and terrorism is unheard of?
- 19eightyfour 9y ago
  Okay, but that's unfairly ( to police States ) correlating lack of economic development with with increased State power. A more realistic comparison is: would you rather live in London, or Hong Kong ( or even better, Singapore )? ( terrorism is rare in HK, which is basically a police state protectorate of China, and SG is almost certainly a police state ). You could just as easily say Paris v Warsaw, or Berlin v Shanghai. TL;DR - comparison with NK is unfair since NK is very hostile to all foreigners and has few attractive economic reasons to live there, it doesn't offer much to potential expats / migrants. But Warsaw or China or HK, or SG have strong policies that seem to have stifled terrorism ( for now ). The fear of "police state == (NK or Burma)" is overblown. You can have strong policies and still have many attractive qualities. Sorry, I feel the above isn't very clear, but it's the best I could do right now. Thanks
  - xiaoma 9y ago
    I'd take Sweden over Singapore anytime. I mean, I like Singapore, but I'm not a fan of having one party that runs everything, the draconian drug laws and wide application of the death penalty. It's also worth pointing out that large numbers of the wealthy have left HK (and been replaced by transplants from China) and a similar trend has been happening in SG for decades
    - 19eightyfour 9y ago
      I am not really sure how to answer that. I could say people leave HK because it's expensive and crowded and they no longer believe in its economic prospects, and are scared of how it may change by its proximity to China. And that some people's choice, or fear, not entirely related to China or, too lesser extent, HK being a police state isn't really a comment on my point that police states can work. Singapore i don't know as much about. I can't tell you with any confidence why people leave there. I have heard the distrust of LKY before, but I've also hard a lot of love and admiration for what was achieved. I could be wrong but I thought that ethnic Chinese usually had a better time in SG, and Malaysians and ethnic "dark skins", either SG natives or immigrants, had a worse time, and would be more inclined to leave. But your username suggests you're Chinese background, so I have that question. But then i know there's a whole grassroots Chinese anti establishment movement in SG, in the same vein as HK students in Umbrella, like the asylum seeker kid, Amos Yee. Singapore is a very multiethnic place, and I know very little about it, so, you see I could have things all mixed up here or be missing important parts of the picture. I can say tho that I think single party states work better like the Chinese model, and not when they, in my view, degenerate into a dynasty. Because the family descendents may not have the same passion or ability to rule as the originator. SG keeps improving, and I think the dynastic aspects are obstructing the son's rule and, the effectiveness of the police state suffers, and more vulnerabilities to misuse of its organs enter, when the ruler is not as strong. In other words, a strong state needs strength at the top and ask the way down, outrageous it starts to eat itself and fall apart. A melt bit of that erosion is surely happening in SG today. Again, not that i really care so much about proving any point right, but, a weakened SG, or some people's dislike of it, is not really a good point saying that police states don't work. Since what weakened it is not a requirement of a police state, and while some prefer elsewhere, others prefer and love SG. I hope this didn't offend you. I'm looking to learn more about SG, and while i think nothing can sub for lots of first hand experience, I'm happy if you can say more. Also all I'm hearing lately about Sweden is bad news about how rapists are getting off free because they are immigrants and Muslims and the Swedes are trying to tolerate their rape culture. Tolerance is a useful virtue only so far as you don't tolerate things that harm your values. To me that's a bad sign of decline for Sweden. I'm sure there's also lots of things great about Sweden, and I'd probably like to travel there. But also, Europe is changing, but not necessarily adapting, and it's easy to romanticize it based on its past reputation. I think the best of Europe can be enjoyed if you're really rich. And can insulate yourself from how the standard of living at the low end has decreased due to stagnation and migration.

im3w1l 9y ago

I think we should try to stop terrorism, but not "at any cost". Using AI model's to monitor all 1-1 conversations in the world is too dangerous of a power - it increases the risk for tyrany much more than it decreases the risk of terrorism.

19eightyfour 9y ago
I haven't thought much about this....But my first reaction is -- can we at least test it to see what happens? I have something that might not be that relevant. Consider China's control of conversations on Weibo as a microcosm of "all 1-1 conversations". Assume they are using some sort of AI there ( there's a good argument for any sufficiently large bureaucracy being AI-like ). Is it really so bad? They've tracked huge GDP growth for 70 years and very low civil conflict, and much harmony, I think, from some points of view, definitely.

cbanek 9y ago

I don't know if the comment was comparing state sanctioned violence vs non-state sanctioned violence, but a quote comes to mind: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Basically, if we wanted to eliminate terrorism, we would have severely curtail freedom. And there aren't nearly as many terrorists as people think. More people die from car crashes, drug overdoses, etc. But changes in the law, the way police and law enforcement do things, could cause a loss of the liberties and freedoms we currently enjoy.

19eightyfour 9y ago
Oh, so you're saying the speaker was saying " some terrorism as opposed to the curtailing of freedoms that would come from eliminating" [1] is preferable ? I completely took it to mean: "I would prefer to live in the Islamic State, than in the USA with mass surveillance." Okay, well I'm undecided as to whether [1] would be preferable or not in the way it's phrased. What I have thought about tho is: - Yes we could eliminate terrorism, and it would take a lot of extreme measures ( that the West would be unlikely to get away with ) - But why should we eliminate terrorism, since from a purely political standpoint, it is quite useful. From any sufficiently emotive or divisive issue political motivation and utility can be extracted. For instance, the fear of terrorism helps the State advance legislation that it probably would not be talking about if we did not have terrorism. So the funny paradox I see is that, at this stage of human development, our States can actually benefit from using the spectre of terrorism to develop and advance themselves. Please take this in no way to mean justifying terrorism in any way...just to say that, IMHO, real politik dictates that terrorism has political benefits for the very State it is supposed to politically disadvantage.
- cbanek 9y ago
  The obvious point is that terrorism isn't something that can be eliminated. It's just like violence. The only difference between terrorism and violence is honestly a political message. If you want to say that the state can get away with things it couldn't before because of a war on something it can't win, I'm with you. The "war on drugs" is about as useful as waiting for Godot. But make no mistake, nobody thinks its about drugs. But overall, you seem to be taking these arguments to extremes that weren't really needed, and I'm not sure why. Nobody said anything about living in the Islamic State, and anyone who would take it that way I think has some serious thinking to do about their perspective.

xiaoma 9y ago

Police states are pretty bad, too. Consider this: Would you rather live in a European country where terrorist attacks happen on a semi-regular basis and are in the news, or would you prefer North Korea where the state is very strong and terrorism is unheard of?

19eightyfour 9y ago
Okay, but that's unfairly ( to police States ) correlating lack of economic development with with increased State power. A more realistic comparison is: would you rather live in London, or Hong Kong ( or even better, Singapore )? ( terrorism is rare in HK, which is basically a police state protectorate of China, and SG is almost certainly a police state ). You could just as easily say Paris v Warsaw, or Berlin v Shanghai. TL;DR - comparison with NK is unfair since NK is very hostile to all foreigners and has few attractive economic reasons to live there, it doesn't offer much to potential expats / migrants. But Warsaw or China or HK, or SG have strong policies that seem to have stifled terrorism ( for now ). The fear of "police state == (NK or Burma)" is overblown. You can have strong policies and still have many attractive qualities. Sorry, I feel the above isn't very clear, but it's the best I could do right now. Thanks
- xiaoma 9y ago
  I'd take Sweden over Singapore anytime. I mean, I like Singapore, but I'm not a fan of having one party that runs everything, the draconian drug laws and wide application of the death penalty. It's also worth pointing out that large numbers of the wealthy have left HK (and been replaced by transplants from China) and a similar trend has been happening in SG for decades
  - 19eightyfour 9y ago
    I am not really sure how to answer that. I could say people leave HK because it's expensive and crowded and they no longer believe in its economic prospects, and are scared of how it may change by its proximity to China. And that some people's choice, or fear, not entirely related to China or, too lesser extent, HK being a police state isn't really a comment on my point that police states can work. Singapore i don't know as much about. I can't tell you with any confidence why people leave there. I have heard the distrust of LKY before, but I've also hard a lot of love and admiration for what was achieved. I could be wrong but I thought that ethnic Chinese usually had a better time in SG, and Malaysians and ethnic "dark skins", either SG natives or immigrants, had a worse time, and would be more inclined to leave. But your username suggests you're Chinese background, so I have that question. But then i know there's a whole grassroots Chinese anti establishment movement in SG, in the same vein as HK students in Umbrella, like the asylum seeker kid, Amos Yee. Singapore is a very multiethnic place, and I know very little about it, so, you see I could have things all mixed up here or be missing important parts of the picture. I can say tho that I think single party states work better like the Chinese model, and not when they, in my view, degenerate into a dynasty. Because the family descendents may not have the same passion or ability to rule as the originator. SG keeps improving, and I think the dynastic aspects are obstructing the son's rule and, the effectiveness of the police state suffers, and more vulnerabilities to misuse of its organs enter, when the ruler is not as strong. In other words, a strong state needs strength at the top and ask the way down, outrageous it starts to eat itself and fall apart. A melt bit of that erosion is surely happening in SG today. Again, not that i really care so much about proving any point right, but, a weakened SG, or some people's dislike of it, is not really a good point saying that police states don't work. Since what weakened it is not a requirement of a police state, and while some prefer elsewhere, others prefer and love SG. I hope this didn't offend you. I'm looking to learn more about SG, and while i think nothing can sub for lots of first hand experience, I'm happy if you can say more. Also all I'm hearing lately about Sweden is bad news about how rapists are getting off free because they are immigrants and Muslims and the Swedes are trying to tolerate their rape culture. Tolerance is a useful virtue only so far as you don't tolerate things that harm your values. To me that's a bad sign of decline for Sweden. I'm sure there's also lots of things great about Sweden, and I'd probably like to travel there. But also, Europe is changing, but not necessarily adapting, and it's easy to romanticize it based on its past reputation. I think the best of Europe can be enjoyed if you're really rich. And can insulate yourself from how the standard of living at the low end has decreased due to stagnation and migration.