3 ms·

Weren't all the CCTV's based on frequent bombings? We've seen in US, that based on 'a problem of the moment' there are new laws passed, like Homeland Security.

Weren't all the CCTV's based on frequent bombings? We've seen in US, that based on 'a problem of the moment' there are new laws passed, like Homeland Security. Then years go by, it looks authoritarian, then everybody is calling it 1984, when really the people asked for it. It seems less like a grand government plan and more humans just Forest Gump'n themselves along into this situation.

Randomizer42 4y ago
Just because people ask for it, doesn't mean that it should be implemented. I didn't know that Mob-Rule was how democracy/republic was defined.
- FrustratedMonky 4y ago
  Mob Rule is exactly how democracy is defined. When a government does things the mob does not like, then they are autocratic and authoritarian. When government does what the people want, suddenly it's mob rule and just going by the latest poling numbers. -- Can't really win, someone is blaming someone for something no matter what side.
  - account42 4y ago
    The mob is generally not the whole populance but just a loud part. Let's not pretend that acting on (often manufactured) outrage is even remotely related to democratic rule.
    - FrustratedMonky 4y ago
      Sure, but its hard to tell isn't it? This mob issue goes back to Plato. Even a majority can act like a 'mob' against its best interest. I just object when people start talking about 'Oh my god its 1984', 'the government is totally fascist'. When in reality, we meandered here. Decisions from 20 years ago look bad now, it doesn't mean the government now is some 'deep state conspiracy'.
      - hiatus 4y ago
        For the world to turn into a surveillance state a la 1984 does not require a deep state conspiracy. It's also worth mentioning that new generations come of age and grapple with the norms of their parents, wrestling with decisions made 20 years ago now. In any case, it would be foolish to think that the governments of the world are devoid of actors who would jump at any opportunity to increase their own power or wealth.
        FrustratedMonky 4y ago
        I agree with this. I'm just saying it can be confusing, because typically the doomsayers/1984/conspiracy's are on the right, and the right professes a love of individuality and freedom. But then the 'right', turn around really want to restrict 'freedom's for people they don't like, typically along religious grounds. So yes, governments can have bad actors. But figuring out who the 'mob' is, and who gets what freedoms, and how to solve the problems of democracy are really not clear cut. And maybe my point, I think a lot of the current situation is not bad-actors so much as idiocy. Is the government really a monolithic evil, or just top heavy with bafoons sitting over a large middle management just wondering what is for lunch.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
pif 4y ago
> based on 'a problem of the moment' there are new laws passed Well, a problem of the moment needs a solution now. I hear many fellow leftists complaining about several "authoritarian", "fascist" laws, but I've never heard a proposal for a law that would be less "authoritarian", or "fascist", while at the same time solving the actual problem we had in the first place.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  The option you don't mention is to resist the pressure to change laws to fix the situation, but instead to work to fix the situation within the existing laws. That should be the first resort. "We have to do something* is not a recipe for good laws.
  - pif 4y ago
    "We have to do something" is often just the reflection of reality. Whether it leads to good laws is secondary. By the way, working "to fix the situation within the existing laws" fits the definition of "doing something", too. But complaining that a law is bad and the instead we should have done "something" does not look like a constructive criticism to me.
FrustratedMonky 4y ago
Why Downvoted? Does nobody remember all the bombings in London? There was an outcry to do something.
- ChoHag 4y ago
  [dead]
snthd 4y ago
>Weren't all the CCTV's based on frequent bombings No, not all, but definitely some eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_and_Environmental_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_and_Environmental_Zone
- FrustratedMonky 4y ago
  Fewer bombings than I remember. -- I wonder if it is because bombs make a big splash, lot of flash for the news. The US kills many more people with guns, but it's so passé, old news, let them die. But a bomb, that gets people outraged, 'we have to do something'. Wonder if there is a racist component, bombs are something 'poor countries' use (brown/terrorist). But Killing with Guns is just a God Given right (white), "I should be free to kill".
  - retrac 4y ago
    More than anything else, there are fewer bombings today because the Irish dispute was settled through a political agreement. Violent republican separatism and monarchist unionism are, thankfully, now beyond the pale, for most of the political and social body in both Ireland and the UK today. May it stay so. > The US kills many more people with guns, but it's so passé, old news, let them die. But a bomb, that gets people outraged, 'we have to do something'. The United States has not, in the last century or so anyway -- maybe during Reconstruction -- actually experienced widespread targeted violence of the kind experienced in the UK and Ireland during the Troubles. More than 10,000 bombs exploded, many hundreds killed, many thousands injured. And that's just the bombs, not the shootings etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Troubles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Tr... Unlike American spree killers, most of these killings were highly targeted political acts. They weren't making a mountain of a molehill, in terms of the violence itself. It was a black mark for many decades for the two islands.
    - FrustratedMonky 4y ago
      My mistake. I skimmed that wiki article and it only mentioned a few. Yes - 10,000 is more like i remember the news from the UK long ago.
mardifoufs 4y ago
How many bombings were prevented thanks to cctv? And now that the Irish conflict seems to have calmed down, why not remove the cameras?
dragonwriter 4y ago
> when really the people asked for it The people didn’t ask for it, they had a prepackaged idea sold to them leveraging the crisis of the moment (and even then it was controversial at the time.) True of the Department of Homeland Security, true of many similar crisis responses.

Randomizer42 4y ago

Just because people ask for it, doesn't mean that it should be implemented. I didn't know that Mob-Rule was how democracy/republic was defined.

FrustratedMonky 4y ago
Mob Rule is exactly how democracy is defined. When a government does things the mob does not like, then they are autocratic and authoritarian. When government does what the people want, suddenly it's mob rule and just going by the latest poling numbers. -- Can't really win, someone is blaming someone for something no matter what side.
- account42 4y ago
  The mob is generally not the whole populance but just a loud part. Let's not pretend that acting on (often manufactured) outrage is even remotely related to democratic rule.
  - FrustratedMonky 4y ago
    Sure, but its hard to tell isn't it? This mob issue goes back to Plato. Even a majority can act like a 'mob' against its best interest. I just object when people start talking about 'Oh my god its 1984', 'the government is totally fascist'. When in reality, we meandered here. Decisions from 20 years ago look bad now, it doesn't mean the government now is some 'deep state conspiracy'.
    - hiatus 4y ago
      For the world to turn into a surveillance state a la 1984 does not require a deep state conspiracy. It's also worth mentioning that new generations come of age and grapple with the norms of their parents, wrestling with decisions made 20 years ago now. In any case, it would be foolish to think that the governments of the world are devoid of actors who would jump at any opportunity to increase their own power or wealth.
      - FrustratedMonky 4y ago
        I agree with this. I'm just saying it can be confusing, because typically the doomsayers/1984/conspiracy's are on the right, and the right professes a love of individuality and freedom. But then the 'right', turn around really want to restrict 'freedom's for people they don't like, typically along religious grounds. So yes, governments can have bad actors. But figuring out who the 'mob' is, and who gets what freedoms, and how to solve the problems of democracy are really not clear cut. And maybe my point, I think a lot of the current situation is not bad-actors so much as idiocy. Is the government really a monolithic evil, or just top heavy with bafoons sitting over a large middle management just wondering what is for lunch.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

pif 4y ago

> based on 'a problem of the moment' there are new laws passed Well, a problem of the moment needs a solution now. I hear many fellow leftists complaining about several "authoritarian", "fascist" laws, but I've never heard a proposal for a law that would be less "authoritarian", or "fascist", while at the same time solving the actual problem we had in the first place.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
The option you don't mention is to resist the pressure to change laws to fix the situation, but instead to work to fix the situation within the existing laws. That should be the first resort. "We have to do something* is not a recipe for good laws.
- pif 4y ago
  "We have to do something" is often just the reflection of reality. Whether it leads to good laws is secondary. By the way, working "to fix the situation within the existing laws" fits the definition of "doing something", too. But complaining that a law is bad and the instead we should have done "something" does not look like a constructive criticism to me.

FrustratedMonky 4y ago

Why Downvoted? Does nobody remember all the bombings in London? There was an outcry to do something.

ChoHag 4y ago
[dead]

snthd 4y ago

>Weren't all the CCTV's based on frequent bombings No, not all, but definitely some eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_and_Environmental_Zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_and_Environmental_Zone

FrustratedMonky 4y ago
Fewer bombings than I remember. -- I wonder if it is because bombs make a big splash, lot of flash for the news. The US kills many more people with guns, but it's so passé, old news, let them die. But a bomb, that gets people outraged, 'we have to do something'. Wonder if there is a racist component, bombs are something 'poor countries' use (brown/terrorist). But Killing with Guns is just a God Given right (white), "I should be free to kill".
- retrac 4y ago
  More than anything else, there are fewer bombings today because the Irish dispute was settled through a political agreement. Violent republican separatism and monarchist unionism are, thankfully, now beyond the pale, for most of the political and social body in both Ireland and the UK today. May it stay so. > The US kills many more people with guns, but it's so passé, old news, let them die. But a bomb, that gets people outraged, 'we have to do something'. The United States has not, in the last century or so anyway -- maybe during Reconstruction -- actually experienced widespread targeted violence of the kind experienced in the UK and Ireland during the Troubles. More than 10,000 bombs exploded, many hundreds killed, many thousands injured. And that's just the bombs, not the shootings etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Troubles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombings_during_the_Tr... Unlike American spree killers, most of these killings were highly targeted political acts. They weren't making a mountain of a molehill, in terms of the violence itself. It was a black mark for many decades for the two islands.
  - FrustratedMonky 4y ago
    My mistake. I skimmed that wiki article and it only mentioned a few. Yes - 10,000 is more like i remember the news from the UK long ago.

mardifoufs 4y ago

How many bombings were prevented thanks to cctv? And now that the Irish conflict seems to have calmed down, why not remove the cameras?

dragonwriter 4y ago

> when really the people asked for it The people didn’t ask for it, they had a prepackaged idea sold to them leveraging the crisis of the moment (and even then it was controversial at the time.) True of the Department of Homeland Security, true of many similar crisis responses.