4 ms·
What’s your point? That you should just give up and invite the squatter in? Serve him a cup of tea while you’re at it, and give him the house? That brand of de
by latexr 1y ago
What’s your point? That you should just give up and invite the squatter in? Serve him a cup of tea while you’re at it, and give him the house?
That brand of defeatism has been spewed every step of the way every time. If everyone thought like you, the first version of Chat Control would have passed. But it didn’t. And even if it eventually does, later is better than sooner. Later is worth fighting for.
Look, it’s fine if you yourself want to personally give up, this is tiring. But please don’t rub your despondency on the people who are trying to fight for something which benefits you. You’re not helping. On the contrary, you’re making it worse for everyone, including yourself.
Every time you make that sort of comment, you’re helping those who want to oppress you. Either join the fight or move aside.
- patanegra 1y agoNo, you should tie the squatter, drive him to the middle of wilderness, and leave him there. So he will no longer have such bad ideas.
- latexr 1y agoWhat exactly does that entail, outside of the analogy and in the real world, in the context of Chat Control legislation?
- winternewt 1y agoPromote a better constitution that protects people from laws like this?
- latexr 1y agoThat is a wish, not an actionable step. We could instead say “promote a utopia where everyone is treated fairly and empathetically and everyone’s needs are met without destroying the planet or a need for government”. That’d “fix” the current problem and more, the issue is what exactly can we do to “promote” that change.
- winternewt 1y agoIt's actionable if you have some imagination. Raise funds for a nonprofit. Start lobbying on both sides of the aisle. Enlist an advertising company to show the dystopian future if something like chat control comes into effect, poll for focus groups and target them. Find ways to undermine and expose the forces that are pushing for authoritarian legislation.
- dennis_jeeves2 1y ago>What exactly does that entail, outside of the analogy and in the real world, in the context of Chat Control legislation? Minimize govt. Remove the govt ability to control many aspects of one's life.
- sph 1y agoGood effing luck with that. Government is an institution that grows until it controls every single aspect of its citizens’ lives. What to do when government grows cancerous?
- dennis_jeeves2 1y agoAgreed, it won't happen in practice. It's common people who are in favor of more legislation without realizing that are shooting themselves in the foot.
- sph 1y ago> It's common people who are in favor of more legislation I know. I've always called myself a progressive left individual, then found out the modern progressive left is all about solving every issue with more rules, more centralisation, more bureaucracy and more prohibition. It's maddening to see how many people feel their government isn't legislating enough and is still too liberal. Case in point: Online Safety Act has been heavily pushed by Labour (despite starting as a Tory thing). Chat Control is being pushed by the Danish Social Democrats.