4 ms·

The foreign policy of the US, including all invasions, death squads, oppressive trade deals supporting open slave labor (sometimes to death), is primarily to su

by drb91 8y ago

The foreign policy of the US, including all invasions, death squads, oppressive trade deals supporting open slave labor (sometimes to death), is primarily to support the business interests of the upper class of the united states. The petite bourgeois’s increased “quality of life” (which is an incredibly misleading term) is a byproduct of the largest wealth redistribution in history, at american gunpoint. So, it’s incredibly disingenuous to reduce all alternatives to capitalism to murder when american capitalism is objectively morally broke.

e3b0c 8y ago
If "the business interests of the upper class" makes governments do all the evils, why do you think this time will be different?
- drb91 8y ago
  It won’t, permanently, and who thinks that about anything? But it would be a good change to try and have human ethics reflected on a societal level. I do have faith with enough failed attempts at capitalism we’ll learn, and at some point in the future capitalism will have the big failure, the one that makes it obvious how unsustainable it is. I’d like to avoid that one in my lifetime. One way that could happen is our AUTOMATED nuclear system built to protect capitalism fails and accidentally destroys civilization. This could happen at literally any time.
CamperBob2 8y ago
'Whataboutism' isn't the answer, I'm afraid.
- drb91 8y ago
  I did not answer your question because it’s stupid and you have functioning neurons. Nobody is arguing for a back door. I’m open to all competing solutions, including government proposed ones.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    First, I didn't ask any questions, I made an assertion. Second, to answer a question that you didn't ask, what you're feeling is called cognitive dissonance. When you feel certain that someone is wrong about something but you can't articulate how or why, you may be tempted to use words like "stupid" that deflate your own point more effectively than they rebut the other person's. It's as if two conflicting motivations are at war in your own mind, consuming intellectual resources needed to form a cogent response. I'm right, he's wrong, but... no, I'm right, he's wrong. If you work towards learning to recognize cognitive dissonance when it arises, you can fight it consciously, and help yourself (and perhaps whoever you're arguing with) to get closer to the truth of the matter. (Yes, this is off-topic, and I'm already bending the rules by replying to you at all, so I'm done with the thread.)
- dtponn1 8y ago
  It's the answer to your stupid assertion.
  - CamperBob2 8y ago
    Perhaps you could point out what's 'stupid' about the assertion I made, rather than overtly violating the site's commenting guidelines.
    - a11595 8y ago
      as a 3rd party observer to this little thread you got going, I gotta agree with him. The question posed by the article is why are next-gen telephone services not encrypted. You're willing to look at government provided solutions. On a tech site? You may not violate commenting guidelines, which are now meaningless because we have insecure mods trying to make themselves feel better. You do say some ridiculously idiotic shit then argue about it. Your "assertion" is stupid because the government decrypting your messages is 99% of the use case for encryption. You want to consider a solution from them? Are you Chinese or, again, stupid?

by drb91 8y ago

e3b0c 8y ago

If "the business interests of the upper class" makes governments do all the evils, why do you think this time will be different?

drb91 8y ago
It won’t, permanently, and who thinks that about anything? But it would be a good change to try and have human ethics reflected on a societal level. I do have faith with enough failed attempts at capitalism we’ll learn, and at some point in the future capitalism will have the big failure, the one that makes it obvious how unsustainable it is. I’d like to avoid that one in my lifetime. One way that could happen is our AUTOMATED nuclear system built to protect capitalism fails and accidentally destroys civilization. This could happen at literally any time.

CamperBob2 8y ago

'Whataboutism' isn't the answer, I'm afraid.

drb91 8y ago
I did not answer your question because it’s stupid and you have functioning neurons. Nobody is arguing for a back door. I’m open to all competing solutions, including government proposed ones.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  First, I didn't ask any questions, I made an assertion. Second, to answer a question that you didn't ask, what you're feeling is called cognitive dissonance. When you feel certain that someone is wrong about something but you can't articulate how or why, you may be tempted to use words like "stupid" that deflate your own point more effectively than they rebut the other person's. It's as if two conflicting motivations are at war in your own mind, consuming intellectual resources needed to form a cogent response. I'm right, he's wrong, but... no, I'm right, he's wrong. If you work towards learning to recognize cognitive dissonance when it arises, you can fight it consciously, and help yourself (and perhaps whoever you're arguing with) to get closer to the truth of the matter. (Yes, this is off-topic, and I'm already bending the rules by replying to you at all, so I'm done with the thread.)
dtponn1 8y ago
It's the answer to your stupid assertion.
- CamperBob2 8y ago
  Perhaps you could point out what's 'stupid' about the assertion I made, rather than overtly violating the site's commenting guidelines.
  - a11595 8y ago
    as a 3rd party observer to this little thread you got going, I gotta agree with him. The question posed by the article is why are next-gen telephone services not encrypted. You're willing to look at government provided solutions. On a tech site? You may not violate commenting guidelines, which are now meaningless because we have insecure mods trying to make themselves feel better. You do say some ridiculously idiotic shit then argue about it. Your "assertion" is stupid because the government decrypting your messages is 99% of the use case for encryption. You want to consider a solution from them? Are you Chinese or, again, stupid?