5 ms·
> We need some sort of human right for digital privacy to make this sort of thing illegal. That's how you get another level of super-government, i.e. one more
by seydor 2y ago
> We need some sort of human right for digital privacy to make this sort of thing illegal.
That's how you get another level of super-government, i.e. one more tyrant in the chain
Historically the circle breaks only with revolution and violence .
Maybe checks and balances would work as a system, but the EU has neither
- squigz 2y ago> Historically the circle breaks only with revolution and violence . This sort of rhetoric is dangerous. > Maybe checks and balances would work as a system It does seem to be working well in America.
- hanniabu 2y ago> This sort of rhetoric is dangerous. For governments. > It does seem to be working well in America. They say ignorance is bliss.
- squigz 2y ago> For governments. Ahh yes, because only government officials die in war. > They say ignorance is bliss. Who's ignorant?
- realce 2y ago> This sort of rhetoric is dangerous How?
- squigz 2y agoBecause it implies the only way forward is with violence, a premise I thoroughly reject.
- realce 2y agoIt states that historically government oppression has resulted in revolution and violence. It doesn't imply its the only way, but it's certainly a human trope repeated countless times in history, and it will occur again. Could provide an constructive alternative viewpoint instead of calling plain facts of history "dangerous" or "rhetoric" as if acknowledgement of history is dangerous?
- hot_gril 2y agoThe comment above literally says "only."
- realce 2y agoAnd conditions it as "historically". It does not state "revolution and violence is the only way forward"
- squigz 2y ago> Could provide an constructive alternative viewpoint instead of calling plain facts of history "dangerous" or "rhetoric" as if acknowledgement of history is dangerous? This is a really unfair reading of my stance, and I'm fairly confident you knew what I meant - especially since I spelled it out in my last comment. Acknowledgement of history is fine. Implications that the way things have always went is the only way it can go is silly at best and dangerous at worst.
- realce 2y ago> Implications that the way things have always went is the only way it can go is silly at best and dangerous at worst. I apologize if I was unfair, I'm just trying to have a provocative conversation, no offense intended. Calling an acknowledgement of history either dangerous, rhetoric, or weighed with the burden of intangible implication seems like a way to shame the observer for observing what is obvious. Just mentioning historical violence is not an endorsement of it or a suggestion that it's the only tool available to the slighted. I find that reaction itself to be the actual danger.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- snowpid 2y ago" Maybe checks and balances would work as a system, but the EU has neither " This is just wrong. There are courts (on EU level and national level), the council and the parlament.