3 ms·

Terrorism, children, drugs, or sex; all excuses used for attacking individual liberty. Let's get real here, stuff like this is about control, not about security

Terrorism, children, drugs, or sex; all excuses used for attacking individual liberty. Let's get real here, stuff like this is about control, not about security, and certainly Nota about morality... That's just how politicians package it so the people swallow the poison pill. That said, I feel like people vastly overestimate the similarity of governments of the US and the UKs vassal states like Canada, and that false expectation is part of why people get outraged. Once one understands this the authoritarian approach of the "Commonwealth" nations things make much more sense.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
I answered a question about what is so bad about sex tourism and also responded to accusations that being against child rape amounts to puritanism. If you want to narrowly define Puritanism as against child rape, okay, I will proudly accept that label. Beyond that, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I'm not here to discuss politics. I have very little to do with politics. If you think explaining the term sex tourism is some sort of political agenda, agreeing with a particular policy, etc, you are reading in a whole boat load of stuff that isn't there. I'm a private citizen, not a politician. I'm engaging in discussion on a forum. That's the extent of that.
- GoblinSlayer 7y ago
  The post is about politics though. >I'm a private citizen, not a politician. You mean citizens don't bear responsibility for politics? Does it mean that politics is disconnected from society?
fopen64 8y ago
That's what I think. The "think of the children!!!!111" eats civil liberties and does not solve the underlying problem.
- sctb 8y ago
  You're failing to meet the bar of discourse here in this thread. Please review the guidelines and start following them or we'll ban the account. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
sctb 8y ago
Please don't post flamebait like this again. It's flamebait because it's both inflammatory and unsubstantive. It's like spending your last dollar to buy spoiled milk. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- arminiusreturns 7y ago
  You are careening dangerously close into abuse of the rules just because a position is slightly controversial, and I think you should rethink your approach to this matter. I understand that it is likely my last setence that you are talking about, and while I certainly should have worded it a bit more carefully, to have a mod jump in and then call my point "unsubstantive" reeks of abuse of power. Before you begin to tell me just how unsubstantive it is, let me ask you one question; does the queen of the UK have or not have the power to dissolve the Canadian Parliament? If yes, Canada cannot be considered an independent nation, and therefor to call it a "vassal state" is appropriate even in the dryest academic sense. Of course it's a controversial opinion, but I'm not aware that the HN rules can be construed to say that you can't post controversial opinions. It is times like this when I would like to remind people that the rule change on HN was protested by many of us and we were completely ignored... and it was because we knew the mods would start to marginalize people who spoke ugly-truths and then got bandwagon-flagged. Not saying they do it on purpose or have a malicious intent, just that they established a structure that encourages this kind of abuse. I protest.
  - sctb 7y ago
    > Terrorism, children, drugs, or sex; all excuses used for attacking individual liberty. You've provided no basis for this claim. > Let's get real here, stuff like this is about control, not about security, and certainly Nota about morality... You've provided no basis for this claim. > That's just how politicians package it so the people swallow the poison pill. I take this as an expression rather than a claim, but still it doesn't teach us anything. You haven't tied your point about sovereignty to the topic of discussion, and when commenters don't do that we get taken off into generic tangents. This is not about holding controversial opinions. It's about failing to meet the standards of discourse here, and meeting them is a rather mechanical thing which all commenters are capable of. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

DoreenMichele 8y ago

I answered a question about what is so bad about sex tourism and also responded to accusations that being against child rape amounts to puritanism. If you want to narrowly define Puritanism as against child rape, okay, I will proudly accept that label. Beyond that, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. I'm not here to discuss politics. I have very little to do with politics. If you think explaining the term sex tourism is some sort of political agenda, agreeing with a particular policy, etc, you are reading in a whole boat load of stuff that isn't there. I'm a private citizen, not a politician. I'm engaging in discussion on a forum. That's the extent of that.

GoblinSlayer 7y ago
The post is about politics though. >I'm a private citizen, not a politician. You mean citizens don't bear responsibility for politics? Does it mean that politics is disconnected from society?

fopen64 8y ago

That's what I think. The "think of the children!!!!111" eats civil liberties and does not solve the underlying problem.

sctb 8y ago
You're failing to meet the bar of discourse here in this thread. Please review the guidelines and start following them or we'll ban the account. > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

sctb 8y ago

Please don't post flamebait like this again. It's flamebait because it's both inflammatory and unsubstantive. It's like spending your last dollar to buy spoiled milk. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

arminiusreturns 7y ago
You are careening dangerously close into abuse of the rules just because a position is slightly controversial, and I think you should rethink your approach to this matter. I understand that it is likely my last setence that you are talking about, and while I certainly should have worded it a bit more carefully, to have a mod jump in and then call my point "unsubstantive" reeks of abuse of power. Before you begin to tell me just how unsubstantive it is, let me ask you one question; does the queen of the UK have or not have the power to dissolve the Canadian Parliament? If yes, Canada cannot be considered an independent nation, and therefor to call it a "vassal state" is appropriate even in the dryest academic sense. Of course it's a controversial opinion, but I'm not aware that the HN rules can be construed to say that you can't post controversial opinions. It is times like this when I would like to remind people that the rule change on HN was protested by many of us and we were completely ignored... and it was because we knew the mods would start to marginalize people who spoke ugly-truths and then got bandwagon-flagged. Not saying they do it on purpose or have a malicious intent, just that they established a structure that encourages this kind of abuse. I protest.
- sctb 7y ago
  > Terrorism, children, drugs, or sex; all excuses used for attacking individual liberty. You've provided no basis for this claim. > Let's get real here, stuff like this is about control, not about security, and certainly Nota about morality... You've provided no basis for this claim. > That's just how politicians package it so the people swallow the poison pill. I take this as an expression rather than a claim, but still it doesn't teach us anything. You haven't tied your point about sovereignty to the topic of discussion, and when commenters don't do that we get taken off into generic tangents. This is not about holding controversial opinions. It's about failing to meet the standards of discourse here, and meeting them is a rather mechanical thing which all commenters are capable of. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html