4 ms·

It's less about the difference between these groups and more about the response to these groups. It is your politics showing in your response rather than the p

It's less about the difference between these groups and more about the response to these groups. It is your politics showing in your response rather than the person you are replying to... do you think they don't believe that Islamic terrorists exist (which they mentioned)? At no point in the history of the government national security apparatus has the target and its veracity made any difference in the trend line of the government doing more surveillance and curtailing more freedoms. Don't believe me? Do some research on COINTELPRO.

toss1 4y ago
Your argument, and that of many others here, seems to be that any govt surveillance is illegitimate, and that govt cannot have any legitimate reason to capture information on anyone. There couldn't be any actual reason for intelligence operations. "It is your politics showing". Any such view is hopelessly ignorant and naive, yet it pops up here often. The person to whom I'm replying is blatantly implying that it is nothing but a variety of illegitimate excuses that form a false justification for intelligence operations. This is even more ignorant than usual, as none of those are the source of intelligence gathering, which predates all of them. Yes, I'm familiar with COINTELPRO, a horde of illegal FBI operations, and many other excesses among the 17 intelligence agencies. I also note that these were ILLEGAL and shut down. I also note that intelligence has been twisted and abused by politicians, including bogh Bush presidents (Bush Sr. let exaggerated estimates of Soviet mil funding drive our mil funding, which did have the good result of collapsing the SU, and Jr abused intel to wrongly justify the Iraq invasion on WMD grounds). I'm know enough to see that while the excesses and even abuses do matter a lot, they are not a justification for ending all intelligence, whether domestic or international. If you want to do that, we might as well simply declare anarchy, and let everyone deal with the criminals and warlords who will take over, and that's no exaggeration.
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  > If you want to do that, we might as well simply declare anarchy, and let everyone deal with the criminals and warlords who will take over, and that's no exaggeration. Bruv … Honestly I can’t tell if you’re for real or no. You already did that! California. People robbing stores in broad daylight, nothing happens to them. Chicago. Do I need to say anything about that third world enclave? Bloody hell man, chaz. A literal warlord took over! What are you doing to yourselves? Snap out of it America!
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - toss1 4y ago
    Ha — right you are! It has already been tried, both the ages before govt, every time govt fell down, and in the case of San Francisco, just got way too lax. The idea that we can somehow get away without governance (or intelligence ops, or policing) is born completely of very high privilege — it completely assumes that all the things that the govt does just happen automatically. It is just like the idiot new manager who arrives and sees that the halls and offices are clean so fires the janitorial staff as excess cost or because they are inconvenient. Of course there are overreaches and abuses of intelligence, and the very concept of policing and everything about it's training, practice, accountability, and results needs to be burnt to the ground and overhauled. But that does NOT mean that we can get away without it. Because, as you noted, even a little time without it becomes a disaster. The key is not to abandon intelligence. The key is to strengthen democracy, make sure that the institutions of democracy, lawmaking, executive, judicial, press, academia, industry, ngos, and individual people all have their own separate power base and independence. In autocracies, all of these are bent to the service of the leader/oligarch. In democracies, there are all kinds of visible flaws, but they tend to be self-correcting, because there is oversight and balance of power. That alone does not prevent overreach or abuses, but it does lead to them being eventually corrected. As Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others."
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Believing government acts on your behalf reeks of 'very high privilege.' If you think shop-keeps won't protect their stores once the chains of SF/Cali government come off, I have a bridge to sell you. Edit: thank you for spelling correction. Wreaks changed to reeks
      - toss1 4y ago
        Of course the shop-keeps will attmpt to protect their stores. That is completely beside the point. The point is that without a democratic government that is at least attempting to self-govern, the alternative is either a new autocracy comes in (see Russia, CCP, Venezuela, Myanmar, etc.), or it starts with anarchy, and quickly falls to the first crimelord/warlord. Every one of those options is far worse than a flawed democracy. Unless, of course, you can point me to the magical stable stateless advanced society where I can go live... (srsly, it'd be great) And no, believing government acts on your behalf does not "wreaks of 'very high privilege.'". Aside from the fact that the word you want is "reeks" (as in smells bad, not inflicting punishment of vengeance), thinking that an attempt at democratic govt is less bad than being ruled by a crimelord, warlord, or fascist autocrat is not high privilege, it is simply a fact. Being able to live in such a democratic govt is, sadly, a bit of a privilege, as many are not so fortunate.

toss1 4y ago

Your argument, and that of many others here, seems to be that any govt surveillance is illegitimate, and that govt cannot have any legitimate reason to capture information on anyone. There couldn't be any actual reason for intelligence operations. "It is your politics showing". Any such view is hopelessly ignorant and naive, yet it pops up here often. The person to whom I'm replying is blatantly implying that it is nothing but a variety of illegitimate excuses that form a false justification for intelligence operations. This is even more ignorant than usual, as none of those are the source of intelligence gathering, which predates all of them. Yes, I'm familiar with COINTELPRO, a horde of illegal FBI operations, and many other excesses among the 17 intelligence agencies. I also note that these were ILLEGAL and shut down. I also note that intelligence has been twisted and abused by politicians, including bogh Bush presidents (Bush Sr. let exaggerated estimates of Soviet mil funding drive our mil funding, which did have the good result of collapsing the SU, and Jr abused intel to wrongly justify the Iraq invasion on WMD grounds). I'm know enough to see that while the excesses and even abuses do matter a lot, they are not a justification for ending all intelligence, whether domestic or international. If you want to do that, we might as well simply declare anarchy, and let everyone deal with the criminals and warlords who will take over, and that's no exaggeration.

throwawayacc2 4y ago
> If you want to do that, we might as well simply declare anarchy, and let everyone deal with the criminals and warlords who will take over, and that's no exaggeration. Bruv … Honestly I can’t tell if you’re for real or no. You already did that! California. People robbing stores in broad daylight, nothing happens to them. Chicago. Do I need to say anything about that third world enclave? Bloody hell man, chaz. A literal warlord took over! What are you doing to yourselves? Snap out of it America!
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- toss1 4y ago
  Ha — right you are! It has already been tried, both the ages before govt, every time govt fell down, and in the case of San Francisco, just got way too lax. The idea that we can somehow get away without governance (or intelligence ops, or policing) is born completely of very high privilege — it completely assumes that all the things that the govt does just happen automatically. It is just like the idiot new manager who arrives and sees that the halls and offices are clean so fires the janitorial staff as excess cost or because they are inconvenient. Of course there are overreaches and abuses of intelligence, and the very concept of policing and everything about it's training, practice, accountability, and results needs to be burnt to the ground and overhauled. But that does NOT mean that we can get away without it. Because, as you noted, even a little time without it becomes a disaster. The key is not to abandon intelligence. The key is to strengthen democracy, make sure that the institutions of democracy, lawmaking, executive, judicial, press, academia, industry, ngos, and individual people all have their own separate power base and independence. In autocracies, all of these are bent to the service of the leader/oligarch. In democracies, there are all kinds of visible flaws, but they tend to be self-correcting, because there is oversight and balance of power. That alone does not prevent overreach or abuses, but it does lead to them being eventually corrected. As Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all others."
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Believing government acts on your behalf reeks of 'very high privilege.' If you think shop-keeps won't protect their stores once the chains of SF/Cali government come off, I have a bridge to sell you. Edit: thank you for spelling correction. Wreaks changed to reeks
    - toss1 4y ago
      Of course the shop-keeps will attmpt to protect their stores. That is completely beside the point. The point is that without a democratic government that is at least attempting to self-govern, the alternative is either a new autocracy comes in (see Russia, CCP, Venezuela, Myanmar, etc.), or it starts with anarchy, and quickly falls to the first crimelord/warlord. Every one of those options is far worse than a flawed democracy. Unless, of course, you can point me to the magical stable stateless advanced society where I can go live... (srsly, it'd be great) And no, believing government acts on your behalf does not "wreaks of 'very high privilege.'". Aside from the fact that the word you want is "reeks" (as in smells bad, not inflicting punishment of vengeance), thinking that an attempt at democratic govt is less bad than being ruled by a crimelord, warlord, or fascist autocrat is not high privilege, it is simply a fact. Being able to live in such a democratic govt is, sadly, a bit of a privilege, as many are not so fortunate.