6 ms·

When it comes to the US, a lot of people treat "freedom" as a euphemism for war. (see: Team America) I wonder if "protection" will start becoming a euphemism f

When it comes to the US, a lot of people treat "freedom" as a euphemism for war. (see: Team America) I wonder if "protection" will start becoming a euphemism for surveillance.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
smegger001 3y ago
that would be double-plus-ungood.
HPsquared 3y ago
That's a word to be avoided in branding, I think. The former German SS (Schutzstaffel) translates to "protection squadron" in English.
chiefalchemist 3y ago
If? We're already there. That's the crux of this article.
asveikau 3y ago
Team America was satirizing a specific moment in history, where they used fear of 9/11 to support an unjust war. That moment has passed. We may be vulnerable to that kind of crap again, but I don't see it right now.
- xbar 3y ago
  I am not sure. I feel more surveilled than I thought would ever be possible. My car watches me in my own garage, and the FBI can pull that data without telling me, without a warrant, just to learn my impressive laundry habits (I'll skip you the trouble, FBI: I use Gain and Downy and Borax, always on cold, tumble dry low).
  - asveikau 3y ago
    And how is that related to using freedom as a reason to invade a sovereign state and suppress opinions not in favor?
  - colpabar 3y ago
    Sure, but to be fair, how many 9/11’s have happened since the first one?
    - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
      9/11 was the extreme statistical anomaly. US Citizens have been historically safe from domestic terrorism for 50 years. ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/16/eight-facts-about-terrorism-in-the-united-states/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/16/eight... (2013 but the numbers are about the same. Odds of dying in a domestic terror attack vary between 1:12000000 & 1:40000000 or the same as picking the correct inch between DC and NYC). It is interesting this period of safety coincided with the release of the Pentagon Papers and the Church Committee that followed. One result of which was forcing the FBI away from domestic surveillance and refocusing it into a law enforcement mission. This lasted for about 40 years (after which the FBI officially abandoned it's LEO mission to pursue the power that comes with NatSec operations).
    - monocasa 3y ago
      How many have been attempted since then?
    - drewcoo 3y ago
      They happen annually.
      - colpabar 3y ago
        lol, you got me
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    The FBI never needed a warrant to get information you give to companies freely. That's why they never needed a warrant for phone records. You have rights to protect your data, but you (and Tesla, et al) don't have rights or legal responsibilities to protect data you collect on others.
- justinclift 3y ago
  No. Team America was satirizing the general US approach of trampling over all other countries in the name of "The American Way". That's not really changed.
  - asveikau 3y ago
    Not really. I haven't seen the thing since 2004. But I thought it was pretty dumb and ironically very US centric in its treatment of these topics. It wasn't a deep criticism. It also at the same time mocked celebrities for being against the war. For the record I was very vehemently against the Iraq war from day one.
    - 20after4 3y ago
      Maybe you missed the deeper satirical message.
      - asveikau 3y ago
        Or maybe it was a shitty movie. There's lots one could say about US foreign policy, but that was 90 minutes of fart jokes. It's weird what people try to venerate sometimes.
        justinclift 3y ago
        Lots of people seemed to have really liked it. As an example, when I was staying at a backpacking hostel in Perth, Australia many years ago the entire lounge area was packed out by people (during the day!) when it was being shown. That was ~70 people, many of them who were walking by initially but saw it on and stuck around to watch it. In that backpacking hostel, there'd not been anywhere close to that number of people watching any other movie. So, there was definitely some kind of interest by people. :)
sneak 3y ago
The US Department of Defense (renamed from Department of War) is currently waging offensive war in a half dozen foreign lands right now.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
  Which foreign lands?
  - joecool1029 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involv... < look for present, it's probably more than a half-dozen. Falls under the same Authorization for Use of Miltary Force of 2001.
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      There are five conflicts under "present", none of which are offensive. Two are helping countries put down insurgencies, two are fighting piracy from Somalia and two are involved in civil wars in the Middle East. (They add up to six because insurgents and pirates are allies). Most of them are as part of a giant collation. Only the Syrian one is actually being led by the US. None of them are to conquer territory or any other description of "offensive war" I've ever seen.
      - sneak 3y ago
        None of them involve defending the US.
        2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Moving the goalposts. Original claim was offensive wars.
        sneak 3y ago

When it comes to the US, a lot of people treat "freedom" as a euphemism for war. (see: Team America) I wonder if "protection" will start becoming a euphemism for surveillance.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

smegger001 3y ago

that would be double-plus-ungood.

HPsquared 3y ago

That's a word to be avoided in branding, I think. The former German SS (Schutzstaffel) translates to "protection squadron" in English.

chiefalchemist 3y ago

If? We're already there. That's the crux of this article.

asveikau 3y ago

Team America was satirizing a specific moment in history, where they used fear of 9/11 to support an unjust war. That moment has passed. We may be vulnerable to that kind of crap again, but I don't see it right now.

xbar 3y ago
I am not sure. I feel more surveilled than I thought would ever be possible. My car watches me in my own garage, and the FBI can pull that data without telling me, without a warrant, just to learn my impressive laundry habits (I'll skip you the trouble, FBI: I use Gain and Downy and Borax, always on cold, tumble dry low).
- asveikau 3y ago
  And how is that related to using freedom as a reason to invade a sovereign state and suppress opinions not in favor?
- colpabar 3y ago
  Sure, but to be fair, how many 9/11’s have happened since the first one?
  - WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
    9/11 was the extreme statistical anomaly. US Citizens have been historically safe from domestic terrorism for 50 years. ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/16/eight-facts-about-terrorism-in-the-united-states/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/04/16/eight... (2013 but the numbers are about the same. Odds of dying in a domestic terror attack vary between 1:12000000 & 1:40000000 or the same as picking the correct inch between DC and NYC). It is interesting this period of safety coincided with the release of the Pentagon Papers and the Church Committee that followed. One result of which was forcing the FBI away from domestic surveillance and refocusing it into a law enforcement mission. This lasted for about 40 years (after which the FBI officially abandoned it's LEO mission to pursue the power that comes with NatSec operations).
  - monocasa 3y ago
    How many have been attempted since then?
  - drewcoo 3y ago
    They happen annually.
    - colpabar 3y ago
      lol, you got me
- HWR_14 3y ago
  The FBI never needed a warrant to get information you give to companies freely. That's why they never needed a warrant for phone records. You have rights to protect your data, but you (and Tesla, et al) don't have rights or legal responsibilities to protect data you collect on others.
justinclift 3y ago
No. Team America was satirizing the general US approach of trampling over all other countries in the name of "The American Way". That's not really changed.
- asveikau 3y ago
  Not really. I haven't seen the thing since 2004. But I thought it was pretty dumb and ironically very US centric in its treatment of these topics. It wasn't a deep criticism. It also at the same time mocked celebrities for being against the war. For the record I was very vehemently against the Iraq war from day one.
  - 20after4 3y ago
    Maybe you missed the deeper satirical message.
    - asveikau 3y ago
      Or maybe it was a shitty movie. There's lots one could say about US foreign policy, but that was 90 minutes of fart jokes. It's weird what people try to venerate sometimes.
      - justinclift 3y ago
        Lots of people seemed to have really liked it. As an example, when I was staying at a backpacking hostel in Perth, Australia many years ago the entire lounge area was packed out by people (during the day!) when it was being shown. That was ~70 people, many of them who were walking by initially but saw it on and stuck around to watch it. In that backpacking hostel, there'd not been anywhere close to that number of people watching any other movie. So, there was definitely some kind of interest by people. :)

sneak 3y ago

The US Department of Defense (renamed from Department of War) is currently waging offensive war in a half dozen foreign lands right now.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
Which foreign lands?
- joecool1029 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involv... < look for present, it's probably more than a half-dozen. Falls under the same Authorization for Use of Miltary Force of 2001.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    There are five conflicts under "present", none of which are offensive. Two are helping countries put down insurgencies, two are fighting piracy from Somalia and two are involved in civil wars in the Middle East. (They add up to six because insurgents and pirates are allies). Most of them are as part of a giant collation. Only the Syrian one is actually being led by the US. None of them are to conquer territory or any other description of "offensive war" I've ever seen.
    - sneak 3y ago
      None of them involve defending the US.
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
        Moving the goalposts. Original claim was offensive wars.
        sneak 3y ago