5 ms·

Punitive brutality (outdoor tent concentration camps, water-boarding, execution), locking up people for their beliefs, over-incarceration and “throwing away th

by himom 8y ago

Punitive brutality (outdoor tent concentration camps, water-boarding, execution), locking up people for their beliefs, over-incarceration and “throwing away the key” mentality neither engenders reform nor a civilized society... it suggests normalization of psychopathy.

ataturk 8y ago
It worked so well for the Soviets, Hungarians, East Germans, etc. though. The idea isn't to reform civil society, it is just political oppression. What do you think all this surveillance is? It's a way to keep the masses under control. You can't resist if you're being tracked everywhere and when you do finally rebel, they have the evidence. I'm all for peace and safety, but I don't want to live under the boot to have it.
ada1981 8y ago
I don’t agree with any of those things. However, I still hold a position that when a system fails, I’d rather it fail in the direction of Nazis. But perhaps you are saying is that in a system with 1/100 failure, I might be less incentivized to fix the problem if the 1% end up being people I don’t like — that seems to be an incentive to be aware of. I don’t think someone should go to jail for accessing public data (or for being stupid and having “neoNazi” beliefs). I’d vote for laws to correct such problems in the system. However, as a human, when the system fails, I’d prefer it fail in the direction of Nazis. Perhaps I have room to mature or grow in this area, I’m open to it.
- pritambaral 8y ago
  You keep saying "when the system fails, I’d prefer it fail in the direction of Nazis". That statement is not much different from "When cancer strikes, I’d prefer it strike one of the Nazis." Neither cancer nor the US judicial system's unfairness discriminate towards Nazis. Your sentiment, "when the system fails, I’d prefer it fail in the direction of Nazis", goes nowhere because when the system fails, it does not look for Nazis to fail in the direction of. There's just no connection between the two parts of your statement.

by himom 8y ago

ataturk 8y ago

It worked so well for the Soviets, Hungarians, East Germans, etc. though. The idea isn't to reform civil society, it is just political oppression. What do you think all this surveillance is? It's a way to keep the masses under control. You can't resist if you're being tracked everywhere and when you do finally rebel, they have the evidence. I'm all for peace and safety, but I don't want to live under the boot to have it.

ada1981 8y ago

I don’t agree with any of those things. However, I still hold a position that when a system fails, I’d rather it fail in the direction of Nazis. But perhaps you are saying is that in a system with 1/100 failure, I might be less incentivized to fix the problem if the 1% end up being people I don’t like — that seems to be an incentive to be aware of. I don’t think someone should go to jail for accessing public data (or for being stupid and having “neoNazi” beliefs). I’d vote for laws to correct such problems in the system. However, as a human, when the system fails, I’d prefer it fail in the direction of Nazis. Perhaps I have room to mature or grow in this area, I’m open to it.

pritambaral 8y ago
You keep saying "when the system fails, I’d prefer it fail in the direction of Nazis". That statement is not much different from "When cancer strikes, I’d prefer it strike one of the Nazis." Neither cancer nor the US judicial system's unfairness discriminate towards Nazis. Your sentiment, "when the system fails, I’d prefer it fail in the direction of Nazis", goes nowhere because when the system fails, it does not look for Nazis to fail in the direction of. There's just no connection between the two parts of your statement.