2 ms·

No, thinking about it some more, you're correct. And they'll do it just the same way they're doing the internet: a little nibble at a time. It will be efforts

No, thinking about it some more, you're correct. And they'll do it just the same way they're doing the internet: a little nibble at a time. It will be efforts to "Save children" "protect orphans" "help the little guy" "control the evil corporations" and every other overused FUD campaign that's worked so well in the past. They'll just re-purpose it -- and take tiny bites. If they told us up front how much control they wanted, nobody would ever agree to it. (This is a systemic problem and not related to some hypothetical "they". I anthropomorphise and use hyperbole simply to express how frustrating it all is. The really sad part is that "they" -- who will be different people in different situations -- mean well and only want to help out. I think it would be much easier on everybody if Darth Vader showed up. At least it would be obvious what was going on. Reasoning about systemic problems is not for those with cartoon ideas of good guys and bad guys.)

pavel_lishin 15y ago
> "help the little guy" "control the evil corporations" I think the current frame of thinking in America is exactly the opposite. > I think it would be much easier on everybody if Darth Vader showed up. I guess Cheney's more of an Emperor figure, though I don't know how many times you can shoot someone in the face before people catch on.
- DanielBMarkham 15y ago
  I would ask you to consider that the nature of this problem is folks picking sides. Once you have picked your side, the restrictions in freedom your side proposes seem okay -- or at least tolerable -- while the other side is always draconian and worthy of disdain, protest, and rebellion. That's what I mean by systemic. Everybody is ready to jump up and go fight for truth and justice -- as long as what they are really doing is sticking it to the other side. When it's their guys doing the same thing? Suddenly it's bad, but not that bad. Hey, maybe it's bad, but they mean well. I'll never forget after our current president got elected. A reporter went to talk to some demonstrators outside the White House. These guys were very upset about the killing of civilians, the police state, scanning records, and all of that. But -- guess what? They were all packing up and going home. The reporter asked "But aren't all these things continuing to happen?" I'll never forget the guy. He said, "Yes, but we have a new president now, and I think we should give him a chance." Here's a guy screaming about killing babies one day. The next day, we're still killing babies, but hey, gotta let the new guy get a feel for the job. No fewer people got killed -- he was no closer to the goals he himself identified -- but his protest wasn't worth it any more. I can't say this enough: it's not one side or the other. Thinking in terms of good guys and bad guys is a critical part of this problem: it's the engine that allows the system itself to continue to ratchet down on freedoms. We have met the enemy, and he is us. A systemic problem is a problem where everybody is acting for a good cause, working as intelligently as they can, and yet the outcome is still poor. Many times a facet or an exacerbator of these problems is the creation of groups of people who blame other groups for being the "real" cause of the problem. [Insert long discussion about evolutionary nature of us-versus-them reasoning and clan formation]
sixtofour 15y ago
"The really sad part is that "they" -- who will be different people in different situations -- mean well and only want to help out." I used to think so, but no longer. It looks to me that issues are merely pasture for politicians to feed on. They don't care about the issues or the people the issues affect, they only notice an issue that can be used to further their career.

pavel_lishin 15y ago

> "help the little guy" "control the evil corporations" I think the current frame of thinking in America is exactly the opposite. > I think it would be much easier on everybody if Darth Vader showed up. I guess Cheney's more of an Emperor figure, though I don't know how many times you can shoot someone in the face before people catch on.

DanielBMarkham 15y ago
I would ask you to consider that the nature of this problem is folks picking sides. Once you have picked your side, the restrictions in freedom your side proposes seem okay -- or at least tolerable -- while the other side is always draconian and worthy of disdain, protest, and rebellion. That's what I mean by systemic. Everybody is ready to jump up and go fight for truth and justice -- as long as what they are really doing is sticking it to the other side. When it's their guys doing the same thing? Suddenly it's bad, but not that bad. Hey, maybe it's bad, but they mean well. I'll never forget after our current president got elected. A reporter went to talk to some demonstrators outside the White House. These guys were very upset about the killing of civilians, the police state, scanning records, and all of that. But -- guess what? They were all packing up and going home. The reporter asked "But aren't all these things continuing to happen?" I'll never forget the guy. He said, "Yes, but we have a new president now, and I think we should give him a chance." Here's a guy screaming about killing babies one day. The next day, we're still killing babies, but hey, gotta let the new guy get a feel for the job. No fewer people got killed -- he was no closer to the goals he himself identified -- but his protest wasn't worth it any more. I can't say this enough: it's not one side or the other. Thinking in terms of good guys and bad guys is a critical part of this problem: it's the engine that allows the system itself to continue to ratchet down on freedoms. We have met the enemy, and he is us. A systemic problem is a problem where everybody is acting for a good cause, working as intelligently as they can, and yet the outcome is still poor. Many times a facet or an exacerbator of these problems is the creation of groups of people who blame other groups for being the "real" cause of the problem. [Insert long discussion about evolutionary nature of us-versus-them reasoning and clan formation]

sixtofour 15y ago

"The really sad part is that "they" -- who will be different people in different situations -- mean well and only want to help out." I used to think so, but no longer. It looks to me that issues are merely pasture for politicians to feed on. They don't care about the issues or the people the issues affect, they only notice an issue that can be used to further their career.