2 ms·

I do not really disagree with you. McCarthyism was before my time and I admit to having no understanding of it. I meant to say we should be creative in dealing

I do not really disagree with you. McCarthyism was before my time and I admit to having no understanding of it. I meant to say we should be creative in dealing with the ways in which totalitarian systems infiltrate our society and weaponize our public. Currently, we do not seemingly have a strong defense against what is happening. I know a bit about what our side does, and I also know what their side does and how they do it. 1337 folks are not enough and they only know half of what is going on.

1337shadow 5y ago
But are you really off-topic or are you actually much deeply in topic? After all, why wouldn't it be the case here: making our own states weaker because "we the public will not negociate our privacy!" ? Is the public in question, strongly expressing their opinion here, really going to benefit from having a weaker state ? Is there no limit about how weak we want our state ? At what point does it starts benefiting forces which are hostile to our civilisation ? Has it even started already ? I think I figured your answer to that last one! What makes our state weaker is not this public, it's whatever forces weaponizing this public against our states, and indeed I'm aware about them, but the public is in the middle, we must win with arguments, by talking about reality, I beleive that's how we can wake up and face reality and actually debate solutions instead of hiding behind distopian scifi scenarios like we are doing here.