3 ms·

Don't blame others for the removal of basic rights whist secretly applauding their removal. "this is why we cant have nice things" where the nice things were ac

Don't blame others for the removal of basic rights whist secretly applauding their removal. "this is why we cant have nice things" where the nice things were actually harmful. Instead if you were actually upset about basic rights being removed, try to defend these rights before they are taken away. Or perhaps be honest about actually liking less freedoms for the greater good (after all it will save lives). But please don't pretend. For those of us old enough to remember 9/11 - we should remember that everyone wanted their rights and liberties to be removed because they were hurting. They applauded authoritarian measures then, just as we are now. And it did save lives (at the expense of brown ones). The outrage revealed by Snowden and Assange happened years and years after everyone was happy to have sign away their basic rights to have some control over the crisis.

axguscbklp 7y ago
I know that the word "everyone" is now often used to mean "the vast majority of people", but I'm not even sure that the vast majority of people would have voted for reducing civil liberties in the aftermath of 9/11, had they been given a vote. The mainstream media did a good job of manufacturing the illusion of consent, but that does not mean that actual consent would have been given had it been asked for. For example, I often read people say thay the 2003 Iraq War was overwhelmingly supported by the US population, whereas polls from the time show that it was not even supported by a majority of poll responders.
- thinkingemote 7y ago
  Isn't that even more of a warning against the danger? Even the best case for the erosion of our liberties I could come up with was less popular than the current support for removing basic rights?
  - axguscbklp 7y ago
    I don't think that the post-9/11 terrorism threat was actually anywhere close to a best case for the erosion of liberties. Until and unless terrorists gain access to weapons of mass destruction plus the ability to deploy them, terrorism is a very minor threat to America. Terrorists might well at some point in the future get access to weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deploy them to the US, but that was not the case 19 years ago and almost certainly is still not the case now.

axguscbklp 7y ago

I know that the word "everyone" is now often used to mean "the vast majority of people", but I'm not even sure that the vast majority of people would have voted for reducing civil liberties in the aftermath of 9/11, had they been given a vote. The mainstream media did a good job of manufacturing the illusion of consent, but that does not mean that actual consent would have been given had it been asked for. For example, I often read people say thay the 2003 Iraq War was overwhelmingly supported by the US population, whereas polls from the time show that it was not even supported by a majority of poll responders.

thinkingemote 7y ago
Isn't that even more of a warning against the danger? Even the best case for the erosion of our liberties I could come up with was less popular than the current support for removing basic rights?
- axguscbklp 7y ago
  I don't think that the post-9/11 terrorism threat was actually anywhere close to a best case for the erosion of liberties. Until and unless terrorists gain access to weapons of mass destruction plus the ability to deploy them, terrorism is a very minor threat to America. Terrorists might well at some point in the future get access to weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deploy them to the US, but that was not the case 19 years ago and almost certainly is still not the case now.