3 ms·

> The politicians passing this stuff are literally the least qualified people to discuss anything tech related. That kind of ranting goes too far. Why the exag

by tgv 3y ago

> The politicians passing this stuff are literally the least qualified people to discuss anything tech related. That kind of ranting goes too far. Why the exaggerations? I count three. It only serves to drive the dislike against politics, and thus anti-democratic tendencies.

ekianjo 3y ago
Politics are driven by dishonest narcissist liars so the default correct stance is no trust.
jiofj 3y ago
This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.
- happytiger 3y ago
  I see what you did there. For the uninitiated: https://youtu.be/ZggCipbiHwE?si=xPe3SQI_lI309h6j https://youtu.be/ZggCipbiHwE?si=xPe3SQI_lI309h6j
- seanw444 3y ago
  Yeah holy cow. I couldn't tell if parent was being sarcastic or not.
bArray 3y ago
I could literally explain to any old person, common man or child why this is bad quite quickly. I maintain this stance. > It only serves to drive the dislike against politics, and thus anti-democratic tendencies. I'm pro-democracy (in the sense that I don't have a better alternative). You can still disagree with the actions of politicians without being anti-democratic - in fact open disagreement is absolutely fundamental to democracy.
- simmerup 3y ago
  If you think you can explain to anyone and convince them easily, you’re likely wrong. Unless you’re some god of charisma. Try and make someone have your opinion, it’s incredibly hard. If they disagree they won’t say so openly but they will vote for politicians trying to make the internet safer
- tgv 3y ago
  C'est le ton qui fait la musique. You're not disagreeing with the actions of politicians, you're calling all of them "literally the least qualified people to discuss anything tech related". That is an incredibly big lie, and you know it. Yet you wrote it anyway. It's ranting, and the target is representative democracy.
oooyay 3y ago
Saying that a particular function in democracy is not best handled by bureaucrats (non-expert representatives) and would be handled better by subject matter experts or a pairing of the two with equal power is not anti-democratic. It's just saying out loud that certain functions within government require expertise over representation.
- triceratops 3y ago
  I know what you meant, but minor correction: subject matter experts are bureaucrats. They work in an office (bureau), and in a well-functioning government are appointed on the basis of merit and credentials. Politicians are elected, non-expert representatives.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
> It only serves to drive the dislike against politics, and thus anti-democratic tendencies. Let them be driven. I find it curious how these "democratic" states have a tendency to turn into tyrannical surveillance police states. At least in a literal dictatorship people know they are powerless instead of having this delusion that they have "democratic" power.

by tgv 3y ago

ekianjo 3y ago

Politics are driven by dishonest narcissist liars so the default correct stance is no trust.

jiofj 3y ago

This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

happytiger 3y ago
I see what you did there. For the uninitiated: https://youtu.be/ZggCipbiHwE?si=xPe3SQI_lI309h6j https://youtu.be/ZggCipbiHwE?si=xPe3SQI_lI309h6j
seanw444 3y ago
Yeah holy cow. I couldn't tell if parent was being sarcastic or not.

bArray 3y ago

I could literally explain to any old person, common man or child why this is bad quite quickly. I maintain this stance. > It only serves to drive the dislike against politics, and thus anti-democratic tendencies. I'm pro-democracy (in the sense that I don't have a better alternative). You can still disagree with the actions of politicians without being anti-democratic - in fact open disagreement is absolutely fundamental to democracy.

simmerup 3y ago
If you think you can explain to anyone and convince them easily, you’re likely wrong. Unless you’re some god of charisma. Try and make someone have your opinion, it’s incredibly hard. If they disagree they won’t say so openly but they will vote for politicians trying to make the internet safer
tgv 3y ago
C'est le ton qui fait la musique. You're not disagreeing with the actions of politicians, you're calling all of them "literally the least qualified people to discuss anything tech related". That is an incredibly big lie, and you know it. Yet you wrote it anyway. It's ranting, and the target is representative democracy.

oooyay 3y ago

Saying that a particular function in democracy is not best handled by bureaucrats (non-expert representatives) and would be handled better by subject matter experts or a pairing of the two with equal power is not anti-democratic. It's just saying out loud that certain functions within government require expertise over representation.

triceratops 3y ago
I know what you meant, but minor correction: subject matter experts are bureaucrats. They work in an office (bureau), and in a well-functioning government are appointed on the basis of merit and credentials. Politicians are elected, non-expert representatives.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

> It only serves to drive the dislike against politics, and thus anti-democratic tendencies. Let them be driven. I find it curious how these "democratic" states have a tendency to turn into tyrannical surveillance police states. At least in a literal dictatorship people know they are powerless instead of having this delusion that they have "democratic" power.