3 ms·

Spying is not “secret services”. Just like a “police force” is a fairly modern matter even though armed guards, etc. have been around for a long time. You also

Spying is not “secret services”. Just like a “police force” is a fairly modern matter even though armed guards, etc. have been around for a long time. You also said feudal governments were responsible for caring for the poor. No one is putting words in your mouth - just correcting your fictional “history”.

scott_w 3y ago
> Spying is not “secret services”. Just like a “police force” is a fairly modern matter even though armed guards, etc. have been around for a long time. Are specific words important or not? You seemed quite blasé about it at first (insinuating something I clearly did not say) but now you find the exact words very important. You're correct in that they're not direct analogues, as is the case when you go back in history, but I don't see as much difference between secret services and spying, or local guards and police forces, bar the legal and societal structures they operate within. The purposes of the organisations tend to map onto one another. > You also said feudal governments were responsible for caring for the poor. And now, suddenly, words are no longer important. I said there was an "expectation" that this happened and gave examples. This is not a legal responsibility but a societal expectation. I could point out that church leaders were exhorting monarchs to fall in line with Papal doctrine to save the souls of their subjects. Again, expectation to care for your subjects in a spiritual sense. At this point, however, we're arguing specifics, of which you seem to have little idea, given you're nitpicking without any context in your attempt to "correct" me. We've gone far from the initial point which was that British people do not have an inherent distrust of the state. The expansion of CCTV must be seen in that context.

3 ms·

Spying is not “secret services”. Just like a “police force” is a fairly modern matter even though armed guards, etc. have been around for a long time. You also

by 36505285thrw 3y ago

scott_w 3y ago
> Spying is not “secret services”. Just like a “police force” is a fairly modern matter even though armed guards, etc. have been around for a long time. Are specific words important or not? You seemed quite blasé about it at first (insinuating something I clearly did not say) but now you find the exact words very important. You're correct in that they're not direct analogues, as is the case when you go back in history, but I don't see as much difference between secret services and spying, or local guards and police forces, bar the legal and societal structures they operate within. The purposes of the organisations tend to map onto one another. > You also said feudal governments were responsible for caring for the poor. And now, suddenly, words are no longer important. I said there was an "expectation" that this happened and gave examples. This is not a legal responsibility but a societal expectation. I could point out that church leaders were exhorting monarchs to fall in line with Papal doctrine to save the souls of their subjects. Again, expectation to care for your subjects in a spiritual sense. At this point, however, we're arguing specifics, of which you seem to have little idea, given you're nitpicking without any context in your attempt to "correct" me. We've gone far from the initial point which was that British people do not have an inherent distrust of the state. The expansion of CCTV must be seen in that context.